Medical Department #26 - "Turning a Blind Eye"

Did you know that eye injuries have gone from less than 1% of total wounds in the Civil War to greater than 10% during modern operations, including those in Iraq and Afghanistan?

It is due in no small part because of the hot, dirty, and dustry conditions. The emergence of IEDs and the use of lasers have also contributed to an increasing number of eye injuries. Indeed, recent news reports describe injuries - including permanent blindness - from green lasers (or "dazzlers") being used in the campaign.

To carry on with the theme, below is an older "Medical Department" column of mine about the eye problems that Jefferson Davis suffered.

TURNING A BLIND EYE
By James M. Schmidt
The Civil War News – “Medical Department” – February 2007

When it comes to having your photograph taken, do you have a “good side”? Jefferson Davis, President of the Confederate States of America, did. Davis fought health problems for a good part of his life, including a nearly fatal bout with malaria in 1836. He was seriously ill again in the winter of 1857-1858, and by February he began suffering from a relapse of a chronic inflammation of his left eye. The disease was so bad that a visiting ophthalmologist commented “I do not see why this eye has not burst.” As a result, most photos of Davis are in right profile, thus hiding his left eye.

In their article, “The Eye Disease of Jefferson Davis (1808-1889)” (Survey of Ophthalmology, Nov-Dec 2006, Vol. 51, No. 6, pp. 596-600), Dr. Richard W. Hertle and Robert Spellman use historical evidence from multiple sources to propose a diagnosis for Davis’s eye condition and consider how the disease could have influenced military and political decisions during the Civil War. Dr. Hertle has also written about eye injuries and the Civil War in general in a previous article entitled “Ophthalmic Injuries and Civil War Medicine” (Documenta Ophthalmologica, 1997, Vol. 94, pp. 123-137).

Dr. Hertle is a native of Brooklyn, New York. He earned a bachelor's degree at Ohio State University in 1979 and his medical degree in 1984 at Northeastern Ohio Universities College of Medicine. After internships and fellowships at hospitals in Ohio he was a resident at Boston University Medical Center. He has also taught at the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine and was a senior scientist at the National Eye Institute of the National Institutes of Health . Presently he holds a number of appointments, including Chief of the Division of Pediatric Ophthalmology, and Professor of Ophthalmology, at the University of Pittsburgh’s School of Medicine.

Dr. Hertle’s co-author, Robert Spellman, is his nephew. Robert (affectionately known to his uncle as “Bobby”) is a senior at Monsignor Bonner High School in Upper Darby, Pennsylvania. Robert has been involved in Civil War living history for about five years. “He was fascinated by my passion for the Civil War and this became a part of our relationship,” Dr. Hertle told me. Robert has also worked at the Civil War Library and Museum in Philadelphia.

Dr. Hertle became interested in Jefferson Davis’s eye condition after reading William J. Cooper’s biography, Jefferson Davis, American (Knopf, 2000). “I read Cooper’s book and found hints of his problem,” he told me, adding “This was the impetus for trying to find out exactly what he had and how this may have influenced some of his decisions.”

They begin the article with a brief biography of Davis as soldier, politician, and statesman, and then turns to a discussion of the eye disease that can be traced back to his first bout with malaria. About a dozen years later, during a relapse, Davis suffered a “severe eye attack” such that, in the words of his wife Varina, he could not “bear a ray of light on either eye.” Documents show that the disease recurred almost annually from that time and through the Civil War.

In a severe relapse in1858, Davis was seen by two famous eye physicians of the time – Drs. Robert Stone and Isaac Hayes. Stone described the condition of Davis’s left eye in detail, including “ulceration of the cornea,” “abscess of the eye,” and “hypopyon” (a collection of pus cells in the aqueous humor). It was Hayes who commented that he couldn’t see why Davis’s eye had not already burst. Davis was given treatments of the day, including “quiet” and bandages soaked in herbal remedies; he also underwent eye surgeries in 1859 and 1860.

Next, Dr. Hertle puts on his clinician’s hat, and discusses a possible diagnosis of Davis’s disease. He feels that it can be divided into at least two parts – a primary disease and the secondary consequences of the inflammation and, not surprisingly, the treatments. In Dr. Hertle’s opinion, the list of possible primary diseases is long, and includes no less than a dozen infectious agents. Using a combination of anecdotal and scientific evidence – including modern studies – Dr. Hertle and his nephew conclude that Davis suffered from “herpes simplex keratouveitis,” a condition that remains a major cause of injury to the eye.

An especially interesting part of the article concerns the authors’ opinion that Davis’s eye condition had consequences during the Civil War, especially during the spring and early summer of 1863. At that time, Davis was confined to his home for weeks at a time, and the disease thus interfered with his duties as President of the Confederate States. Coincidentally, it was also a pivotal period in military planning for the Confederacy. The authors argue that the eye disease, or perhaps medicines used in the treatment, impaired Davis’s decision-making ability resulting in poor advice to and poor communication with senior military commanders such as Lee and Pemberton.

Dr. Hertle has been a history buff for a long time - an interest that he inherited from his father. “I have been an amateur Civil War historian since about 1990, when, during my training I was faced with taking care of many trauma patients,” Dr. Hertle told me. He recognized a common theme throughout history: the influence of war on rapid developments in medical innovation and practice. “The Civil War was particularly interesting as a focal point for change in the pre-microbiologic era,” he told me, adding “The more we look at the Civil War period the more firsts in medicine and surgery become apparent.”

Jefferson Davis’s is not the only interesting eye-related story in the Civil War. “Benjamin Butler had strabismus (“lazy eye”),” Dr. Hertle told me, adding that “there were also great advances in prosthetic eyes as a result of the War.” He noted that discoveries regarding the neurology of the visual system were part of larger investigations and observation of battlefield injuries and diseases on the brain seen at large specialty hospitals in which patients with neurological diseases were cared for.

Modern war, including the present war in Iraq, poses some particular challenges when it comes to military ophthalmology. Indeed, eye injury rates in battle have been increasing over the last 150 years. Data from the U.S. Army’s Center for Health Promotion and Preventive Medicine show that ocular injuries have gone from less than 1% of total injuries in the Civil War to 13% during operations Desert Shield and Desert Storm.

“I think that ‘high tech’ instrumentation and desert warfare require special visual and ocular motor skills and protection, respectively,” Dr. Hertle told me. “The acceptance by the armed forces of refractive surgical procedures (e.g., LASIK and radial keratotomy) has allowed our soldiers to go into battle without the need for specific optical correction such as spectacles and contact lenses.” He added that the dry, dusty and intense UV rays in the present theaters of conflict can be detrimental to the health of the ocular surface, lens, and retina.

James Durney at TOCWOC Reviews Lincoln's Labels!

I want to thank James Durney for posting a very kind review of my first book, Lincoln's Labels: America's Best Known Brands and the Civil War, on Brett Schulte's very popular TOCWOC blog today. James is a Top500 amazon reviewer (and a fellow Facebooker!) and does us authors a great favor by cross-posting his reviews on the other online booksellers as well, which requires a good amount of time on his part.

Excerpts:

"Books on logistics tend to be about as much fun to read as watching the grass grow...[but] the response of companies to the demands of a major war is important. This is a complex and compelling story of companies balancing government contracts with their normal customers...Until reading “Lincoln’s Labels”, I did not think it possible for a book about war production to be informative and fun.

"Each chapter covers a company that supplied the Union armies during the Civil War and is still in business. This forms an instant connection with the war and the reader...The author links each of these companies to the American Civil War, how they responded and profited. In place of a lengthy dry tome, we have a lively history of the company during the war.

"Each company has a chapter. This allows the author to concentrate our attention in one industry with almost no distractions. Sufficient background information is provided for the reader to grasp the industry specific issues caused by the war. The balance of the chapter is an easy to read, informative history..."

I am so happy - and humbled - at James' kind review and I can tell that he "got" it, that is, he identified - and appreciated - the mission of the book. I couldn't ask for more. Thanks, James!

For more reviews of Lincoln's Labels, please see:

Rea Andrew Redd - The Civil War Librarian
Pittsburgh Tribune-Review
Andrew Wagenhoffer - Civil War Books and Authors
Michael Aubrecht - Pinstripe Press
Reader Testimonial
Advance Praise/Blurbs

Long Time, No Blog

Just a quick note to let readers know I haven't fallen off the face of the earth. Lighter blogging early this summer, that's all. Just returned from a nice holiday to visit family in Oklahoma and will be back at it again, soon. Hope everyone had a great 4th of July holiday.

Full Metal Jackets and the Civil War

No, not the film. Rather, an interesting new article in the medical literature that examines the differences in wounds created by the Civil War Minie projectile and the full metal jacketed bullet of the Spanish-American War: "Wound ballistics: Minié ball vs. full metal jacketed bullets--a comparison of Civil War and Spanish-American War firearms," Military Medicine, April 2009, Vol. 174 (4):403-7 by PJ Dougherty (Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Michigan) and HC Eidt (Winn Army Community Hospital, Fort Stewart, GA).

The abstract describes the experiment and summarizes the conclusions:

OBJECTIVE: The advent of the full metal jacketed bullet in the late nineteenth century was thought to cause less severe battlefield wounds. This study compares the wounding characteristics of a reproduction rifle from the American Civil War to one of the Spanish-American War using the wound profile method.

METHODS: A 0.58 caliber rifled musket using Minié balls and a 0.30 caliber Krag-Jorgenson rifle using full metal jacketed bullets were fired into calibrated 10% ordnance gelatin blocks at a distance of 3 meters. Measured parameters included maximum temporary cavity, muzzle velocity, and the permanent track.

RESULTS: Maximum temporary cavities were significantly larger using the musket, averaging 121 mm (+/- 5.4) vs. 38.6 mm (+/- 8.8) (p <>

CONCLUSIONS: The rifled musket produced more severe wounds when compared to the Krag-Jorgenson rifle, as was clinically apparent to observers at the time of the Spanish-American War.

The article is interesting on a number of levels:

1) it includes a brief description of the evolution of the Minie and Krag-Jorgenson projectiles and the debate as to whether the full metal jacketed bullet would actually produce more or less severe wounds.

2) an interesting experiment that used battlefield dropped Minie bullets (to minimize metallurgical differences in reproductions) and an authentic Krag-Jorgenson rifle.

3) an excellent bibliography with references to period (Civil War and Spanish-American War) reports on wound ballistics. One of the most interesting is Griffith's 1890s experiments with human cadavers (rather than gelatin used in modern experiments) to examine wound ballistics.

I am contacting Drs. Dougherty and Eidt with hopes I can arrange an interview for my "Medical Department" column in The Civil War News. Stay tuned.

Advance Praise for "Years of Change and Suffering"!

Co-editor Guy Hasegawa and I are putting finishing touches on the manuscript for Years of Change and Suffering: Modern Perspectives on Civil War Medicine, our collection of invited expert essays. The book is due to be published in October 2009 by Edinborough Press. You can read more details about the various contributors and their chapters here and here.

A few people have had a chance to read the manuscript already and they have provided some very kind advance praise, which we are proud, happy - and humbled - to share:

"The new book Years of Change and Suffering:Modern Perspectives on Civil War Medicine is a must for all interested in the subject of Civil War medicine. Its authors are the elite of Civil War medical scholars of our time and they give a new, modern insight to the subject. Highly recommended." - Gordon Dammann, D.D.S.

Dr. "Gordy" Damman is the founder of the National Museum of Civil War Medicine and the author of several books, including three volumes of the Pictorial Encyclopedia of Civil War Medical Instruments and Equipment and - more recently - Images of Civil War Medicine: A Photographic History (Demos Medical Publishing, 2007) with Alfred Jay Bollet.

“Years of Change and Suffering is a collection of fresh and insightful essays on those essential, yet often overlooked, underpinnings of medical care in the American Civil War. With impeccable scholarship each essay enlivens seemingly mundane subject matter and illuminates its importance to the progress of medical science, both during the war years and beyond.” - Bill J. Gurley, Ph.D.

Bill is editor of the excellent book, I Acted From Principle: The Civil War Diary of a Confederate Surgeon in the Trans-Mississippi (University of Arkansas Press, 2005); he is also Professor of Pharmaceutical Sciences, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences.

"If hindsight is 20/20, then this collection of essays by eight renowned authors and scholars give us a 20/15 vision of Civil War medicine. A must volume for the library of any Civil War medical historian." - Peter J. D'Onofrio, Ph.D.

Pete is founder and President of the Society of Civil War Surgeons.

Finally, Dr. Thomas P. Lowry penned a wonderful Foreword to the book which includes the following kind endorsement:

"Years of Change and Suffering adds a whole new dimension to the literature on Civil War medicine: it does not duplicate earlier work, but gives us in-depth treatment of subjects explored only minimally in other works and illuminates the quantum leap in medical knowledge and organization spawned by the vast necessities and cataclysmic suffering of a continent at war...This is a remarkable book. The contributors are the top people in their respective fields. The narrative prose is lively and clear...I found it both informative and enjoyable."

Tom is the author of more than a dozen books on the Civil War - especially the medical aspects - including the landmark The Story the Soldiers Wouldn't Tell: Sex and the Civil War (Stackpole Books, 1994) and - most recently - Confederate Death Sentences: A Reference Guide (BookSurge, 2009).

On behalf of Guy and the other contributors to the book, we want to thank Gordy, Bill, Pete and Tom for their wonderful endorsements.

Keep posted to theblog for more news on the book!

Medical Department #25 - Civil War Snake Oil - Part III - Abraham Lincoln and Patent Medicines!

A few months ago I posted Parts I and II of my continuing series on the interesting and important role that "patent medicines" played in the American Civil War for my "Medical Department" column in The Civil War News.

Part III has now appeared in the June 2009 issue and is re-printed below for your enjoyment. Part IV - regarding how patent medicine manufacturers marketed their nostrums specifically to veterans many years after the war will appear next month. Stay Tuned!

PATENT MEDICINES AND THE CIVIL WAR - PART III
“LINCOLN’S RENOWNED REBEL EXTERMINATOR”
By James M. Schmidt
The Civil War News
“Medical Department” – June 2009

In the first installments of this series, I described the rising popularity of so-called “patent medicines” up to the years of the Civil War and the booming numbers of nostrums during the war and after. As the leading figure of the nineteenth century, it is no surprise that Abraham Lincoln had his own association with patent medicines, from his days as a lawyer in Springfield, to his inauguration, his presidency, and many years after his assassination.

When medical historian Dr. James Harvey Young acquired the papers of the Birchall & Owen drugstore in Springfield, he found Lincoln listed among their many customers, although he seems to have bought more ledgers for his law practice than many drugs. James Hickey – longtime curator of the Lincoln Collection at the Illinois Historical Society – published a detailed account of the Lincoln family’s ledger at Springfield’s Corneau & Diller Drug Store. He found that they purchased a wide variety of patent medicines, including Wright’s Indian Vegetable Pills, Wistar’s Balsam of Wild Cherry, cordials, sarsaparilla, hair restoratives, and “Brown Mixture” – Corneau & Diller’s own concoction for colds and coughs.

Once Lincoln was elected, one patent medicine maker jumped at the chance to take advantage of the president-elect’s popularity. In early 1861, the proprietors of “Bellingham’s Stimulating Onguent for the Hair and Whiskers” published advertisements in the New York Times, New York Herald, and Vanity Fair, implying that Lincoln’s beard could be attributed to their nostrum. One of the advertisements stated:

PRESIDENT LINCOLN (three times)
DID YOU SEE HIM? (four times)
DID YOU SEE HIS WHISKERS? (three times)
RAISED IN SIX WEEKS BY THE USE OF BELLINGHAM'S ONGUENT (six times)

There is no evidence that Lincoln ever used Bellingham’s whisker potion, but, as Dr. Young wrote in his history of patent medicines, The Toadstool Millionaires, “It was nothing new, of course, for an American nostrum maker to stretch the truth, nor was there any novelty in an advertisement that linked a patent medicine with the news of the hour.”

One manufacturer of Civil War “patriotic covers” – envelopes featuring various sentiments of patriotism or caricatures of the enemy – took advantage of the popularity of patent medicines and Lincoln by featuring him as a chemist/alchemist. The engraving shows Lincoln stirring a concoction in a vat labeled “Pure Refined National Elixir of Liberty.” On the floor and shelves around him are other bottles with clever names, such as “Lincoln’s Renowned Rebel Exterminator” (“Warranted Not To Spoil in Warm Climates”).

Once Lincoln took office, he was bombarded with correspondence of all types: people seeking favors and positions in office; advice on strategy for the war; ideas for war-winning inventions; and, not surprisingly, letters accompanying gifts of patent medicines or formulas for certain cures. For example, in June 1861, Peter Miller of Chautauqua Co., New York, wrote President Lincoln:

“Having been engaged the last three years in the sale of medicines from Pierpont & Co…and having witnessed the instant relief, and permanent cure of many of the various ailments for which Dr. E. Cooper's Universal Magnetic Balm is recommended…I have thought it might be well to send ‘Our President’ a small supply…Please accept the same and do not fear to trust it as you would a true friend -- administer to your own family and friends, (especially to Gen. Scott) note its effects and write to me giving the result.”

As if Lincoln didn’t suffer enough second-guessing of his handling of military affairs, he was also bothered by correspondence from his Cabinet regarding the use of quack medicines in the Army hospitals. In September 1862, Salmon Chase – Secretary of the Treasury – wrote Lincoln in distress upon “hearing that a poor fellow from Ohio [Chase’s home state] was suffering severely from a wound in the hand…” and asked Lincoln to press the Surgeon General to give his consent to allow a “Dr. Forsha” to “try his Balm on the wound.” Chase added, “I really think it a duty to our wounded & suffering soldiers that…trial be made of a remedy which seems likely to do so much good.” Lincoln acquiesced by endorsing the note, “Will the Surgeon General please allow Dr. Forsha to try the case named within?”

Three months later, perhaps impatient with the lack of cooperation from Hammond, Dr. Forsha wrote directly to Lincoln, declaring, “If the President will give me the charge of a hospital…to use my owne Medisen in and up on the wounded Soldiers for three months I will insure ninety percent of all the flesh wounds to be well and the Soldiers to be in a healthy condition and fit for duty within thirty days from the time I take them.”

Attorney General Edward Bates intercepted the note and forwarded it to Lincoln with his own message, acknowledging, “It is evident that Dr Forsha is not much of a Scholar. But he certainly has great curative powers; and really works wonders in relieving pain and healing wounds. I do really wish that some of our poor, suffering soldiers could have the benefit of his successful practice.”

Finally, in February 1863, Surgeon General William Hammond wrote President Lincoln, “I have met with Dr. Forsha before, and am satisfied that he is an ignorant quack. The fact that he keeps his preparation a secret is sufficient proof…of his charlatanism.” Hammond thanked Lincoln “for referring the matter to me, and thus saving the Medical Corps the disgrace, and the sick the injury which would result from placing this man in charge of a Hospital.”

As additional evidence, Hammond included a letter from Dr. Meredith Clymer, who declared that the previous summer he saw, “several officers…who had been severely wounded…& whose wounds had been dressed…by a Dr Forsha. A very irritating & pungent preparation had been poured into the wound…In every case it had done harm.”

Just as the owners of “Bellingham’s Onguent” took advantage of Lincoln’s popularity before he took office, another company took advantage of Lincoln’s enduring popularity many years later. In the late 1890’s, the Fort Wayne Drug Company introduced “Lincoln Tea for the Liver and Kidneys,” which the firm billed as a “Remarkable remedy for constipation, an aid in purifying the blood, and is excellent in cases of dyspepsia, headache, biliousness, and similar ailments due to a sluggish or inactive condition of the bowels.”

Of the portrait of the martyred president featured on the front of each box, one writer - in a 1901 issue of the Medical Sentinel - found the engraving “grand, gloomy and peculiar,” adding, “Beneath it was the statement that Lincoln Tea moves the bowels. It seemed that the great old countenance took on a pitiful expression to think that it was used as an appeal to the constipated world.”

While the “Great Emancipator” might have resigned himself to being the “Great Un-Constipator,” he may have been more insulted when the same company introduced “Lincoln Sexual Pills”! One advertisement stated that “Thousands of young and middle-aged men growing prematurely old because of the practice of vices or excesses have been restored to perfect strength and glorious manhood…and if you use LINCOLN SEXUAL PILLS you will surprise yourself and your friends by becoming a strong, manly man.!” Another ad declared that the pills “…give the proper functional actions to all the vital organs. Be the kind of man you ought to be – yes, be a man!”

The "Civil War Librarian" Reviews "Lincoln's Labels"!

I want to thank Rea Andrew Redd, aka "The Civil War Librarian" for posting a kind review of my first book, Lincoln's Labels: America's Best Known Brands and the Civil War, on his blog today.

Excerpts:

"In this bicentennial year of Lincoln's birth readers are deluged with Lincoln books. James Schmidt has written one for the subscribers of Civil War Historian and Citizens' Companion magazines, who will enjoy and keep handy Lincoln's Labels as a ready reference...this overview which explores the brand names that during the Civil War supplied food, medicine, clothing, and weapons. Civil War era soldiers and civilians used Du Pont’s gunpowder, Brooks Brothers’ uniforms, Procter & Gamble’s soap and Borden’s condensed milk.

"[He] relates a variety of rarely told stories of inventions, marketing and quartermaster purchasing. Lincoln's Labels touches upon how each firm mirrors the war and how family and friendships were torn asunder, as well as how politicians and merchants conspired and crossed paths with Abraham Lincoln. Soldiers and civilians are also the focus of this book.

"CWL will keep his copy close by and also assign the library's copy to business majors who are in CWL's U.S. history survey class. Schmidt's narrative is also accessible to an advanced placement high school audience."

I am so happy - and humbled - at Rea's kind review. His assessment that the book can be interesting and useful to such diverse readers as high school students, business majors in college, and Civil War "living historians" is satisfying, indeed.

Thanks, Rea!

For more reviews of Lincoln's Labels, please see:

Pittsburgh Tribune-Review
Andrew Wagenhoffer - Civil War Books and Authors
Michael Aubrecht - Pinstripe Press
Reader Testimonial
Advance Praise/Blurbs

Civil War Medicine (and Writing) on Facebook!

For those of you who enjoy this "Civil War Medicine (and Writing)" blog, I invited you to add me as a friend on "Facebook."

I'll continue to use this blog as an archive for my "Medical Department" columns, book reviews, writing news, etc., as I have for more than two years now, but I'll be posting shorter notes, especially images on Facebook, often before longer posts appear here.

For example, I've already posted an album of medical-related Civil War patriotic covers (envelopes) in my collection as well as images from wartime issues of the American Phrenological Journal.

I've also found that people tend to comment more on the Facebook posts than here on the blog, which is just super.

A link to my profile appears under the blogroll on the right-hand side of the page, and here.

Medical Department #24 - Historic Churches (and Hospitals) of Fredericksburg

About a dozen years ago, I had the great pleasure of visiting Fredericksburg and the battlefields and sites associated with the Fredericksburg & Spotsylvania National Military Park (Fredericksburg, Chancellorsville, The Wilderness, Spotsylvania, the Jackson Shrine, etc.) with my lifelong - and best - friend, Curtis Fears. While we spent most of our time on the battlefields, we did take time to walk the streets of "Old Town" Fredericksburg.

One of the prominent features of Fredericksburg - as you can see from the period photo - are the city's churches, which dominated the city's wartime skyline. As someone very interested in Civil War medicine, it's especially interesting to know that all of the period churches were used as hospitals after the major battles of 1862, 1863, and 1864.

Fortunately, there is a great new book that describes in detail the role that some of these churches played before, durin, and after the Civil War, and how - in turn - the war affected the churches. That book is Historic Churches of Fredericksburg, and I had the great pleasure of interviewing the author, Michael Aubrecht, for my most recent (May 2009) "Medical Department" column in The Civil War News, which is reprinted below with hyperlinks galore. Enjoy!

IF THESE WALLS COULD TALK
By James M. Schmidt
The Civil War News – “Medical Department” – May 2009

“At an early hour Dr. Cutter called on fourteen men…to go with him to the city, to establish hospitals there…in a short time we had four ready for occupancy, we were then ordered to clear the Baptist church…the armies had met and the wounded were rapidly brought in…Then in the outer rooms of the church the surgeons began to cut and slash…” - Diary of John Bailey, Ninth New Hampshire

In his recent book, Historic Churches of Fredericksburg: Houses of the Holy (The History Press, 2008, 128 pp., $19.99), Michael Aubrecht provides a look at disunion, war, and reconstruction (literally and figuratively) as experienced by Secessionists, Unionists, and African Americans in Fredericksburg, Virginia’s landmark churches during the Civil War era.

Readers of this column will especially enjoy the book due to Michael’s significant attention to the use of the churches as hospitals – indeed the town itself was referred to as “one vast hospital” - and the subsequent damage due to that use.

To document the history of five Fredericksburg churches during the war, Michael drew on an impressive array of sources, including archival material from the individual churches; sources at the Fredericksburg and Spotsylvania National Military Park; soldier and civilian journals, letters, and memoirs; and – most interesting – postwar “Court of Claims” documents. The book is handsome and is amptly illustrated with more than eighty photographs and engravings. The narrative is lively, especially when Michael incorporates first-hand accounts.

Each chapter begins with a brief sketch of the church’s origin, a lengthy section on the wartime experience of the church (for the building and parishioners), how the church and community were rebuilt postwar, and the state of the church today. Though the book lacks annotation or an Index, the author’s attribution of material in the book is clear enough that readers will not have difficulty identifying sources from the Bibliography.

Michael Aubrecht lives in Fredericksburg, Virginia, near the historic Massaponax Church and just a few miles from the “Stonewall” Jackson Shrine. He is a professional (and award-winning) art director and designer with historical interests in both the Civil War and baseball. Michael is the author of three previous books as well as hundreds of articles as a contributing writer for Baseball-Almanac.com. Frequently the two subjects coincide in both articles and in consulting for reenactments of period games. You can visit him on the web here. He was kind enough to answer my questions about Historic Churches of Fredericksburg.

In choosing the churches for the book, Michael selected what he “believed to be the more noteworthy congregations for the book in terms of their experiences during the Civil War,” adding, “I also wanted to strictly cover landmark churches that are still standing today.” That said, he did acknowledge that other denominations and faiths had active communities in Fredericksburg. “There were Catholics who attended St. Mary’s, although they were in the minority at the time. There were also Jewish settlers in Virginia although there were no synagogues in the area,” he told me.

While most Civil War enthusiasts are familiar with the beating that Fredericksburg homes, businesses, and churches took from artillery bombardments (by both sides, Michael points out) during the war, they are probably less familiar with the tremendous scarring of the inside of these houses of worship. “I’m sure anyone who has ever seen photographs of the town would agree that Fredericksburg looked like hell during the Civil War,” Michael told me. “Of course, the interiors of the churches were absolutely devastated from hospital use and some were even commandeered for stables. Most were completely unusable until after the war in 1865.”

As evidence, he quotes Major St. Clair Mulholland of the 116th Pennsylvania, who remembered one post-battle scene, writing, “In the lecture room of the Episcopal Church eight operating tables were in full blast” and “the floor was densely packed with men.” Sunday school teacher at the city’s Presbyterian Church recalled that “Federal forces occupied the building for a hospital. They tore all of the pews out…the church was completely gutted…[they] used most of the pews to mark the graves of the soldiers.” A nurse stationed at Fredericksburg’s United Methodist Church wrote, “they had the pews knocked to pieces; under the backs and seats [they] put a cleat and made little beds.”

After the war, the churches sought to recover the cost of the damages. Indeed, among the most interesting sources that Michael cites in the book are postwar "Court of Claims" inquiries and documents. “Those documents are prized pieces in my reference library,” Michael told me. Churches that were involved in the Battle of Fredericksburg - or any battle for that matter - submitted itemized claims to the court of the United States government, as a petition to recover the cost of damages.

“All of these cases took years to come to fruition and involved a tedious and detailed investigation whereby members of the congregation, as well as unbiased witnesses, testified in order to prevent the commission of insurance fraud,” Michael explained. “The required criteria for granting a claim involved several factors that had to be determined by the panel conducting each investigation.”

To be sure, the book is not all about battles, bombardments, and amputations. In describing the origins of each church, Michael describes interesting theological differences that led to splits among the denominations before the war. His discussion of the treatment of the city’s population of enslaved African-Americans and how they worshiped is very enlightening. There are also some very moving scenes in the book, such as when Union soldiers worship with civilians of the occupied city.

Even as a Fredericksburg resident, Michael found that he had more to learn about the city’s role in the war. “I was familiar with the political and military aspects of the town and its place in history. However, I didn't know the points of view from the everyday people,” he told me. “This project actually pushed me to look in places that I had never been. The conflict and division that existed prior to the war - politically, socially, and spiritually - was a real eye opener,” he added.

Michael encourages visitors and tourists to Fredericksburg not to limit their visits to the area battlefields. “The best reason to tour the churches is that there is something of interest for everyone,” he told me. “The walk itself takes you through the beautiful streets of Old Town, the classic architecture and interiors of the buildings are breathtaking, the history is literally everywhere you look, and the people who work and attend these churches are some of the nicest that you could ever hope to meet.”

Michael recommended the following highlights:

the Tiffany stained-glass windows at St. George’s Episcopal
the artifact room at Fredericksburg Baptist
the magnificent pipe-organ at Shiloh Baptist (Old Site)
the courtyard at the Presbyterian Church, and
the bell tower at Fredericksburg Methodist.

“Be sure to bring a camera, too, as there are plenty of plaques, tombstones, and markers to photograph,” he added.

Presently, Michael is in the process of completing a baseball book entitled, You Stink! Major League Baseball’s Terrible Teams and Pathetic Players, with co-author (and Civil War historian and author) Eric Wittenberg. He’ll then return to the Civil War with Campfires at the Crossroads: Confederate Encampments in Spotsylvania County, part of the new “American Chronicles” series at The History Press.

As if that wasn’t enough, Michael is active on the board of the National Civil War Life Foundation, advising documentary projects, and maintaining a steady speaking schedule. Michael concluded by stating, “I’m really blessed to live in a community that is saturated in Civil War history, as there is always something rewarding for people like us to do.”

American Medical Times - June 1, 1861 - Highlights

I have mentioned before that I really enjoy reading Civil War-era medical journals. I recently secured an original copy of the June 1, 1861, issue of the American Medical Times, and thought I'd share some of the highlights and interesting excerpts; they are all the more interesting due to its being a (very) early war issue:

1) "Contributions to Military Surgery" by Zina Pitcher, M.D. - Zina Pitcher (1797-1872) was a noted surgeon of the era and a distinguished citizen of the State of Michigan. He served 15 years in the United States Army, was president of the American Medical Association, and a two-time mayor of Detroit. In his essay, Pitcher commented on the "literary sterility" on the part of the military when it came to sharing their knowledge and experience with the medical community, especially by submitting material to medical journals. He listed several reasons for the "sterility" and admitted - not surprsingly - that his "best field for observation" was to be found in his civil and marine (small "m") hospital practice. Some of his most interesting points included how pre-war civilian surgeons might have gained experience with terrible wounds due to increasing industrialization:

"Not only in those occasions incident to a state of war, but the introduction of steam into universal use as a mechanical power, by the explosion of boilers and the collision of steamboats and locomotives, causing so many injuries, closely resembling those occasioned by the bursting of heavy pieces of ordnance and the projection of cannon balls..."

Picher also made an interesting point about amputation: that the sight of the terrible wound itself - mangled leg or arm - could instill a (mentally) depressing influence on both the patient and surgeon; he wrote:

"When the limb has been removed, we at once get rid of an exhausting stillicidious hemorrhage, and of the depressing corporeal and moral influence that the concousness of its presence has upon the physical and mental strength of the patient...at the same time...[we - the surgeon] acquire a moral power by arousing the sentiment of hope to assist us, which we cannot invoke as long as the mangled extremity is in view. Another advantage is gained by an early opeartion, in the shutting off from contact with the wounded surfaces the deletirious effects of vicious atmospheric contagions."

Picher finished the article with descriptions of wounds unique to artilleryman.

2) In the lead editorial - "A Glance at the Past" - the editors of the Times went all the way back to the War of 1812, which they saw as "no means destitute of important observations in the science and art of military surgery." They identified defects from that war which had since been rectified by official policy and pointed to others that they hoped would be rectified in the present war.

3) In a letter to the American Medical Times, Dr. E. K. Sanborn, Surgeon to the 1st Regiment Vermont Volunteers, wrote from Fort Monroe, Virginia, to describe "medical matters at this station." The unit was a 3-month regiment and sent to the "front" in a hurry, so it's no surprise that Sanborn politely bemoaned the lack of judicious preparation of surgical instruments and other medical supplies, especially the medicine chests, which he described as:

"...in weight, size, and general appearance, were imposing. At the first surgeon's call in camp, about twenty sick reported, in which coughs and colds, sprains...and gonorrhea (alas!) were pretty equally distributed. I found, on examination of thos eponderous and expensive chests, that were absolutely no means of making ordinary volatile liniment...not a single expectorant...and the same was true of gonorrhea; no...mask for the transitory penalty of social indiscretion."

He added - with some - bemusement:

"The delicacy of the compliment to the Green Mountain Boys, implied in the last ommission, I profoundly appreciate and acknowledge. But I would respectfully suggest...that some of the above articles would be of more service to the regiment than the large shopware jars of bromide of potass and other useless chemicals that encumber the chest."

Every wartime issue of the American Medical Times - especially early war issues - include notes on army and naval affairs, including appointments as surgeons and assistant surgeons to the rapidly growing Union army and navy.

Persons doing research and ancestors or regiments would do well to consult wartime medical journals, especially when letters from surgeons describe the medical condition of the regiment in camp, on the march, and in battle.