# U.S. Civil War Casualties--What Was the State of Medical Care? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [June 5, 2001, 4:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u-s-civil-war-casualties-what-was-the-state-of-medical-care/67696 "2001-06-05T16:17:48Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 4\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![tsunamisurfer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/a698b9/32.png) [@tsunamisurfer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tsunamisurfer)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2001, 12:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u-s-civil-war-casualties-what-was-the-state-of-medical-care/67696/21 "2001-06-06T12:35:31Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by tsunamisurfer \* > \*\*Surfing the web last night, I stumbled upon this passage regarding U.S. Civil War casualties: > > “Most surgeries were amputations and took place at the field hospitals. Of all the operations performed during the Civil War, 95% were done with the patient under some form of anesthesia. Chloroform and ether were the most common anesthetics. The large number of amputations performed during the war was the result of the severe nature of the wounds caused by the Minié ball, the number of wounded needing immediate treatment, and the often-poor condition of the patients…” > \*\* I might add that the claim–“95% of the patients were under some form of anesthesia”–is meaningless. This same site indicated that anesthesia sometimes meant whiskey or morphine. Imagine getting one or two shots of whiskey, then having someone saw off your bloody leg mid-thigh. Also, it seems to me that whiskey, ether or chloroform would do nothing for the considerable post-surgical pain–which might persist for days, weeks, or months. As I recall, untold thousands of narcotics addicts (morphine) got their sad start from U.S. civil war injuries and medical care, but this fact was hushed up by successive by shamed administrations, the media, public, etc. Remember too: since germ theory was non-existent, the surgeons would saw off limb after limb with the same saw, perhaps wiping off the saw blade (as best as one can) with a bloody rag in between “operations.” A last point: scholars and institutions sometimes have biases and agenda, and seek to bolster viewpoints that serve their causes, while ignoring important evidence to the contrary. IIRC, I got the opening site from the National Museum of Civil War Medicine. ---
**Author:** ![tsunamisurfer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/a698b9/32.png) [@tsunamisurfer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tsunamisurfer)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2001, 12:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u-s-civil-war-casualties-what-was-the-state-of-medical-care/67696/22 "2001-06-06T12:37:34Z")
[QUOTE] \*Originally posted by tsunamisurfer \* \*\* > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by tsunamisurfer \* > \*\* > CORRECTIONS: this fact was hushed up by successive shamed administrations, the media, public, etc. > I got the opening cite from the National Museum of Civil War Medicine. \*\* ---
**Author:** ![Jois](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ea666f/32.png) [@Jois](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jois)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2001, 2:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u-s-civil-war-casualties-what-was-the-state-of-medical-care/67696/23 "2001-06-06T14:33:03Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Boris B \* > \*\* > > > [@](#): > > > > \*Originally posted by Jois \* > > \*\*I’m not so sure about the Miniball traveling too slowly to become sterilized in the rifle barrel… > > > > The forcing of the miniball into the rifling of the [gun] barrel should have cleaned it up, yes? > > > > Jois > > \*\* > > Well, it might have cleaned it up a little, but not enough to prevent infections reliably. I think **dropzone** has the right idea - a bullet greased with animal fat, stored at room temperature in the gear of a muddy soldier exposed to lots of sick and dead people, would have to be a microbiological nightmare. I get the eeks just thinking about it. _If_ it were shaped like a modern (non-grooved, jacketed) bullet, and fired at supersonic velocities down the hot barrel of a rapid-firing modern gun, it would probably get pretty clean. Pulling it out with sterile instruments, dressing the area with clean bandages, and making sure the patient didn’t sit in a trench next to last week’s shrapnel casualties would all drastically increase the odds for survival. > > I’m not saying tissue damage wasn’t a big cause of Civil War amputations, I’m just saying … > :eek: infections! :eek: \*\* Thanks, Boris B, I see what you mean and certainly the miniball rifles were not rapid fire. Jois ---
**Author:** ![toadspittle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c0e974/32.png) [@toadspittle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/toadspittle)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2001, 7:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u-s-civil-war-casualties-what-was-the-state-of-medical-care/67696/24 "2001-06-06T19:19:14Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by MGibson \* > \*\* > One of the doctors mentioned that sometimes todays military rifles can shatter bones. Basically you have a very small bullet travelling at a very great speed. When it comes into contact with a bone it can often send bone fragments into the surrounding flesh. \*\* They shattered bones back then, too. That was the main reason for amputations: While the surgeons were ill-equipped to deal with penetrating wounds in general, they were totally unable to deal with a complicated procedure like repairing a shattered bone, which today requires a sterile operating theater and any number of pins and wires. They knew the boys stood a better chance of living if a shatter-boned limb just came off. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u-s-civil-war-casualties-what-was-the-state-of-medical-care/67696.md?page=1)