Another house divided: Union medical service and sectarians during the civil war

Journal of the History of Medicine and Allied Sciences

Volumn 54, Issue 4, 1999, Pages 478-510

  Flannery, Michael A ^a  

^a NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; HISTORY; HUMAN; MILITARY MEDICINE; ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT; UNITED STATES; WAR;

HISTORY, 19TH CENTURY; HUMANS; MILITARY MEDICINE; UNITED STATES; WAR;

EID: 0033211637     PISSN: 00225045     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/jhmas/54.4.478     Document Type: Article

References (141)

1. See John Duffy, From Humors to Medical Science: A History of American Medicine, 2nd ed. (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1993), p. 151. For a complete discussion of camp disease during the Civil War, see Paul E. Steiner, Disease in the Civil War: Natural Biological Warfare in 1861-1865 (Springfield, Ill.: Charles C. Thomas, 1968).
2. See John Duffy, From Humors to Medical Science: A History of American Medicine, 2nd ed. (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1993), p. 151. For a complete discussion of camp disease during the Civil War, see Paul E. Steiner, Disease in the Civil War: Natural Biological Warfare in 1861-1865 (Springfield, Ill.: Charles C. Thomas, 1968).
3. The classic and official work on the subject was commissioned by the Surgeon General Joseph K. Barnes under an act of Congress and published as The Medical and Surgical History of the War of the Rebellion, 3 vols., 6 pts. (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1870-1888). For specific mortality statistics of Union forces, see Charles Smart, "On the Medical Statistics of the War," in ibid., 1, pt. 3, 1-33.
4. The classic and official work on the subject was commissioned by the Surgeon General Joseph K. Barnes under an act of Congress and published as The Medical and Surgical History of the War of the Rebellion, 3 vols., 6 pts. (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1870-1888). For specific mortality statistics of Union forces, see Charles Smart, "On the Medical Statistics of the War," in ibid., 1, pt. 3, 1-33.
5. Modern studies now considered standard in the field are George Worthington Adams, Doctors in Blue: The Medical History of the Union Army in the Civil War (1952; rprt., Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1996); H. H. Cunningham, Doctors in Gray: The Confederate Medical Service (1960; rprt., Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1993). Some other important works addressing various aspects of Civil War medical care are Norman H. Franke, "Medico-Pharmaceutical Conditions and Drug Supply in the Confederate States of America, 1686-1865" (Ph.D. diss., University of Wisconsin, 1956); Mary C. Gillett, The Army Medical Department, 1818-1865 (Washington, D.C.: Center of Military History United States Army, 1987); George Winston Smith, Medicines for the Union Army: The United States Army Laboratory during the Civil War (Madison, Wis.: American Institute of the History of Pharmacy, 1962); John S. Haller, Jr., Farmcarts to Fords: A History of the Military Ambulance, 1790-1925 (Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press, 1992); Glenna R. SchroederLein, Confederate Hospitals on the Move: Samuel H. Stout and the Army of Tennessee (Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 1993).
6. Modern studies now considered standard in the field are George Worthington Adams, Doctors in Blue: The Medical History of the Union Army in the Civil War (1952; rprt., Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1996); H. H. Cunningham, Doctors in Gray: The Confederate Medical Service (1960; rprt., Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1993). Some other important works addressing various aspects of Civil War medical care are Norman H. Franke, "Medico-Pharmaceutical Conditions and Drug Supply in the Confederate States of America, 1686-1865" (Ph.D. diss., University of Wisconsin, 1956); Mary C. Gillett, The Army Medical Department, 1818-1865 (Washington, D.C.: Center of Military History United States Army, 1987); George Winston Smith, Medicines for the Union Army: The United States Army Laboratory during the Civil War (Madison, Wis.: American Institute of the History of Pharmacy, 1962); John S. Haller, Jr., Farmcarts to Fords: A History of the Military Ambulance, 1790-1925 (Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press, 1992); Glenna R. SchroederLein, Confederate Hospitals on the Move: Samuel H. Stout and the Army of Tennessee (Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 1993).
7. Modern studies now considered standard in the field are George Worthington Adams, Doctors in Blue: The Medical History of the Union Army in the Civil War (1952; rprt., Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1996); H. H. Cunningham, Doctors in Gray: The Confederate Medical Service (1960; rprt., Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1993). Some other important works addressing various aspects of Civil War medical care are Norman H. Franke, "Medico-Pharmaceutical Conditions and Drug Supply in the Confederate States of America, 1686-1865" (Ph.D. diss., University of Wisconsin, 1956); Mary C. Gillett, The Army Medical Department, 1818-1865 (Washington, D.C.: Center of Military History United States Army, 1987); George Winston Smith, Medicines for the Union Army: The United States Army Laboratory during the Civil War (Madison, Wis.: American Institute of the History of Pharmacy, 1962); John S. Haller, Jr., Farmcarts to Fords: A History of the Military Ambulance, 1790-1925 (Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press, 1992); Glenna R. SchroederLein, Confederate Hospitals on the Move: Samuel H. Stout and the Army of Tennessee (Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 1993).
8. Modern studies now considered standard in the field are George Worthington Adams, Doctors in Blue: The Medical History of the Union Army in the Civil War (1952; rprt., Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1996); H. H. Cunningham, Doctors in Gray: The Confederate Medical Service (1960; rprt., Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1993). Some other important works addressing various aspects of Civil War medical care are Norman H. Franke, "Medico-Pharmaceutical Conditions and Drug Supply in the Confederate States of America, 1686-1865" (Ph.D. diss., University of Wisconsin, 1956); Mary C. Gillett, The Army Medical Department, 1818-1865 (Washington, D.C.: Center of Military History United States Army, 1987); George Winston Smith, Medicines for the Union Army: The United States Army Laboratory during the Civil War (Madison, Wis.: American Institute of the History of Pharmacy, 1962); John S. Haller, Jr., Farmcarts to Fords: A History of the Military Ambulance, 1790-1925 (Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press, 1992); Glenna R. SchroederLein, Confederate Hospitals on the Move: Samuel H. Stout and the Army of Tennessee (Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 1993).
9. Modern studies now considered standard in the field are George Worthington Adams, Doctors in Blue: The Medical History of the Union Army in the Civil War (1952; rprt., Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1996); H. H. Cunningham, Doctors in Gray: The Confederate Medical Service (1960; rprt., Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1993). Some other important works addressing various aspects of Civil War medical care are Norman H. Franke, "Medico-Pharmaceutical Conditions and Drug Supply in the Confederate States of America, 1686-1865" (Ph.D. diss., University of Wisconsin, 1956); Mary C. Gillett, The Army Medical Department, 1818-1865 (Washington, D.C.: Center of Military History United States Army, 1987); George Winston Smith, Medicines for the Union Army: The United States Army Laboratory during the Civil War (Madison, Wis.: American Institute of the History of Pharmacy, 1962); John S. Haller, Jr., Farmcarts to Fords: A History of the Military Ambulance, 1790-1925 (Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press, 1992); Glenna R. SchroederLein, Confederate Hospitals on the Move: Samuel H. Stout and the Army of Tennessee (Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 1993).
10. Modern studies now considered standard in the field are George Worthington Adams, Doctors in Blue: The Medical History of the Union Army in the Civil War (1952; rprt., Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1996); H. H. Cunningham, Doctors in Gray: The Confederate Medical Service (1960; rprt., Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1993). Some other important works addressing various aspects of Civil War medical care are Norman H. Franke, "Medico-Pharmaceutical Conditions and Drug Supply in the Confederate States of America, 1686-1865" (Ph.D. diss., University of Wisconsin, 1956); Mary C. Gillett, The Army Medical Department, 1818-1865 (Washington, D.C.: Center of Military History United States Army, 1987); George Winston Smith, Medicines for the Union Army: The United States Army Laboratory during the Civil War (Madison, Wis.: American Institute of the History of Pharmacy, 1962); John S. Haller, Jr., Farmcarts to Fords: A History of the Military Ambulance, 1790-1925 (Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press, 1992); Glenna R. SchroederLein, Confederate Hospitals on the Move: Samuel H. Stout and the Army of Tennessee (Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 1993).
11. Modern studies now considered standard in the field are George Worthington Adams, Doctors in Blue: The Medical History of the Union Army in the Civil War (1952; rprt., Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1996); H. H. Cunningham, Doctors in Gray: The Confederate Medical Service (1960; rprt., Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1993). Some other important works addressing various aspects of Civil War medical care are Norman H. Franke, "Medico-Pharmaceutical Conditions and Drug Supply in the Confederate States of America, 1686-1865" (Ph.D. diss., University of Wisconsin, 1956); Mary C. Gillett, The Army Medical Department, 1818-1865 (Washington, D.C.: Center of Military History United States Army, 1987); George Winston Smith, Medicines for the Union Army: The United States Army Laboratory during the Civil War (Madison, Wis.: American Institute of the History of Pharmacy, 1962); John S. Haller, Jr., Farmcarts to Fords: A History of the Military Ambulance, 1790-1925 (Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press, 1992); Glenna R. SchroederLein, Confederate Hospitals on the Move: Samuel H. Stout and the Army of Tennessee (Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 1993).
12. It is surprising how often historians writing on different aspects of Civil War medicine have misunderstood the nature of sectarian medicine during the period. Gordon Dammann, for example, fails to distinguish between eclectic in the vernacular sense from eclectic in the professional sense by simply referring to "eclectic medicine" as "home remedies" composed of "plant derivatives" frequently used by soldiers. See his Pictorial Encyclopedia of Civil War Medical Instruments and Equipment (Missoula, Mont.: Pictorial Histories Publishing, 1983), p. 44. H. H. Cunningham's standard work on Confederate medicine refers to homeopathy, hydropathy, and allopathy as "among the most popular sects." Cunningham, (n. 3) Doctors in Gray, p. 15.
13. It is surprising how often historians writing on different aspects of Civil War medicine have misunderstood the nature of sectarian medicine during the period. Gordon Dammann, for example, fails to distinguish between eclectic in the vernacular sense from eclectic in the professional sense by simply referring to "eclectic medicine" as "home remedies" composed of "plant derivatives" frequently used by soldiers. See his Pictorial Encyclopedia of Civil War Medical Instruments and Equipment (Missoula, Mont.: Pictorial Histories Publishing, 1983), p. 44. H. H. Cunningham's standard work on Confederate medicine refers to homeopathy, hydropathy, and allopathy as "among the most popular sects." Cunningham, (n. 3) Doctors in Gray, p. 15.
14. For a thorough discussion of quacks and quackery see James Harvey Young, The Toadstool Millionaires: A Social History of Patent Medicines in American before Federal Regulation (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1961).
15. John S. Haller, Jr., Kindly Medicine: Physio-medicalism in America, 1836-1911 (Kent, Ohio: Kent State University Press, 1997).
16. John S. Haller, Jr., Medical Protestants: The Eclectics in American Medicine, 1825-1939 (Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press, 1994), p. 162-65.
17. Ronald L. Numbers, "The making of an eclectic physician: Joseph M. McElhinney and the Eclectic Medical Institute of Cincinnati," Bull. Hist. Med., 1973, 47, 155-66, p. 160.
18. William G. Rothstein, American Physicians in the 19th-Century: From Sects to Science (Baltimore, Md.: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1972), pp. 159-60.
19. For details, see Alex Berman, "The heroic approach in 19th century therapeutics," Bull. Am. Soc. Hasp. Phann., 1954, 11, 321-27.
20. William H. Cook, The Physio-Medical Dispensatory (Cincinnati, Ohio: Wm. H. Cook, 1869), p. 61.
21. Ibid., pp. 65-66.
22. An especially useful discussion of the use of calomel by nineteenth-century allopaths is available in John S. Haller, Jr., "Samson of the materia medica: Medical theory and the use and abuse of calomel," Pharm. Hist., 1971, 13, 27-34, 67-76.
23. Charles Wilkins Short, "An introductory address to a course of lectures on materia medica," Transylvania J. Med. Assoc. Sci., 1833, 6, 461-74, p. 461.
24. Experiments dating from the 18505 showed that calomel did not increase biliary secretion. In 1868 the effectiveness of calomel as a biliary stimulant was thoroughly refuted by the Edinburgh Committee's report published by Dr. J. Hughes Bennett in The British Medical Journal. See discussion by Berman, (n. 10), p. 327. Despite this evidence, the faith in calomel's therapeutic value remained unshaken. The Edinburgh Medical Journal (1869, 15, p. 456) insisted that although the report "upsets all our preconceived ideas as to the action of mercury on the liver," it still "opens up entirely new views as to the action of a most important remedy." These investigations notwithstanding, calomel remained for them "a true cholagogue." For details, see Edward John Waring, Bibliotheca Therapeutica, or Bibliography of Therapeutics, 2 vols. (London: The New Sydenham Society, 1878-1879), 2, 485-86.
25. Experiments dating from the 18505 showed that calomel did not increase biliary secretion. In 1868 the effectiveness of calomel as a biliary stimulant was thoroughly refuted by the Edinburgh Committee's report published by Dr. J. Hughes Bennett in The British Medical Journal. See discussion by Berman, (n. 10), p. 327. Despite this evidence, the faith in calomel's therapeutic value remained unshaken. The Edinburgh Medical Journal (1869, 15, p. 456) insisted that although the report "upsets all our preconceived ideas as to the action of mercury on the liver," it still "opens up entirely new views as to the action of a most important remedy." These investigations notwithstanding, calomel remained for them "a true cholagogue." For details, see Edward John Waring, Bibliotheca Therapeutica, or Bibliography of Therapeutics, 2 vols. (London: The New Sydenham Society, 1878-1879), 2, 485-86.
26. Experiments dating from the 18505 showed that calomel did not increase biliary secretion. In 1868 the effectiveness of calomel as a biliary stimulant was thoroughly refuted by the Edinburgh Committee's report published by Dr. J. Hughes Bennett in The British Medical Journal. See discussion by Berman, (n. 10), p. 327. Despite this evidence, the faith in calomel's therapeutic value remained unshaken. The Edinburgh Medical Journal (1869, 15, p. 456) insisted that although the report "upsets all our preconceived ideas as to the action of mercury on the liver," it still "opens up entirely new views as to the action of a most important remedy." These investigations notwithstanding, calomel remained for them "a true cholagogue." For details, see Edward John Waring, Bibliotheca Therapeutica, or Bibliography of Therapeutics, 2 vols. (London: The New Sydenham Society, 1878-1879), 2, 485-86.
27. Haller, (n. 13), p. 75.
28. With numerous medical schools and practitioners of virtually every stripe, Cincinnati played host to an especially contentious medical community. Quoted in Reginald C. McGrane, The Cincinnati Doctor's Forum (Cincinnati: The Academy of Medicine, 1957), pp. 10-11.
29. Edward L. Munson, "The army surgeon and his work," in Francis Trevelyan Miller, ed., The Photographic History of the Civil War, 5 vols. (1911; rprt., Secaucus, N.J.: Blue and Grey Press, 1987), 4, 220, 222.
30. For details, see Harvey E. Drown, The Medical Department of the United States Army from 1775 to 1873 (Washington, D.C.: Surgeon General's Office, 1873), pp. 218-19.
31. See Charles Smart, (n. 2), p. 531.
32. The Cincinnati Lancet & Observer, 1862, 5, 249-51, p. 250.
33. Robert E. Denney, Civil War Medicine: Care & Comfort of the Wounded (New York: Sterling Publishing, 1994), p. 67.
34. Steiner, (n.1) Disease in the Civil War, p. 5.
35. Steiner points out that comparisons of regiments recruited in 1861 with those of 1864 show no appreciable difference in disease or mortality rates; ibid. See especially his Table IV, p. 37. Some of the regiments reporting the highest disease mortality rates were organized comparatively late in the war, suggesting that the great advances made in camp sanitation during the course of the conflict had little bearing on disease prevention.
36. On the effectiveness of smallpox vaccine see ibid., pp. 4-5.
37. Adams, (n. 3) Doctors in Blue, pp. 47-48.
38. For details, see "Army and navy. Regulations for admission and promotion in the Medical Department of the Army," Am. Med. Times, 1862, 5, 206-8, p. 206. See also Bonnie Ellen Blustein, Preserve Your Love for Science: Life of William A. Hammond, American Neurologist (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1991), pp. 76-79.
39. For details, see "Army and navy. Regulations for admission and promotion in the Medical Department of the Army," Am. Med. Times, 1862, 5, 206-8, p. 206. See also Bonnie Ellen Blustein, Preserve Your Love for Science: Life of William A. Hammond, American Neurologist (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1991), pp. 76-79.
40. Adams, (n. 3) Doctors in Blue, p. 49. For a sample of typical examination questions, see "Form of examination of candidates for assistant-surgeons of the U.S. Army," Am. Med. Times, 1862, 5, 278-79.
41. Adams, (n. 3) Doctors in Blue, p. 49. For a sample of typical examination questions, see "Form of examination of candidates for assistant-surgeons of the U.S. Army," Am. Med. Times, 1862, 5, 278-79.
42. The Cincinnati Lancet & Observer, (n. 21), p. 250.
43. Adams, (n. 3) Doctors in Blue, p. 10.
44. The Cincinnati Lancet & Observer, 1862, 5, 194-95, P. 194.
45. The Cincinnati Lancet & Observer, 1862, 5, 307, p. 307.
46. Robert S. Newton, "Army examination. Bad teeth - bad practice, and bad arrangement of the medical department. Who is to blame? Who can save our young men?" Eclectic Med. J., 1861, 20, 326-28, p. 326.
47. John King, "Medicine in the army," Eclectic Med. J., 1863, 23, 225-26, p. 225.
48. Ibid., p. 226.
49. John H. Brinton, Personal Memoirs of John H. Brinton: Civil War Surgeon, 1861-1865 (1914; rprt., Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press, 1996), p. 65.
50. Ibid., p. 91.
51. Haller, (n. 7) Medical Protestants, p. 140.
52. "Army and navy surgeons," Eclectic Med. J. Philadelphia, 1861, 4, 465-67, p. 465-66.
53. Harris L. Coulter, Science and Ethics in American Medicine, 1800-1914, vol. 3 of Divided Legacy: A History of the Schism in Medical Thought (Wasington, D.C.: McGrath, 1973), p. 297.
54. For complete details of his service, see E. C. Franklin, "Homeopathy in the army," N. Am. J. Homeopathy, 1863, 12, 267-78.
55. E. C. Franklin, "Homeopathy in the army (continued)," N. Am. J. Homeopathy, 1864, 12, 417-30, pp. 417-20.
56. "Homeopathy in military hospitals," Am. Med. Times, 1862, 4, 42-44, pp. 42, 44.
57. T. P. Wilson, "Medical reform and medical monopoly in the army," Am. Homeopathic Observer, 1865, 2, 129-33, P. 132.
58. Quoted in Haller, (n. 6) Kindly Medicine, pp. 68, 70.
59. Newton, (n. 33), p. 328.
60. John King, "Amiy surgeons," Eclectic Med. J., 1862, 21, 44-45.
61. John King, "Eclectics in the army," Eclectic Med. J., 1863, 22, 247.
62. "Irregular practitioners in the government service," Med. Surg. Rept., 1863, 10, 464.
63. King, (n. 48).
64. Harvey Wickes Felter, History of the Eclectic Medical Institute, Cincinnati, Ohio, 1845-1902 (Cincinnati, Ohio: Alumnal Association, 1902), p. 123.
65. Ibid., pp. 116-17.
66. Ibid., p. 121.
67. William Paine, "Army surgeons," The Eclectic Med. J. Philadelphia 1862, 5, 253.
68. For a complete listing of the standard supply table, see Smith, (n. 3) Medicines for the Union Army, pp. 99-107.
69. The USP figures are from Wade Doyle, Official Herbs: Botanical Substances in the United States Pharmacapoeias, 1820-1990 (New Palestine, Ohio: Buckeye Naturopathic Press, 1991), p. 57. I arrived at the botanical percentages for the standard supply table by using Boyle's same method for delineating botanicals in the USP. A substance was "botanical" if it met the following criteria: (1) it was a substance of plant origin; (2) it was not an isolated compound but rather represented a whole plant product; (3) it had not been chemically purified or altered (this forced a distinction between opium and morphine, for example); and (4) it was not used in combination with some strong nonbotanical substance (e.g., sulfuric acid, muriatic acid, or some heavy metal).
70. Caustic, "Army matters," Eclectic Med. J., 1864, 24, 344-46, pp. 345-46.
71. Ibid.
72. See discussion in John Harley Warner, The Therapeutic Perspective: Medical Practice, Knowledge, and Identity in America, 1820-1885 (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1986; rprt. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1997), pp. 22-36.
73. For a full discussion, see Jacob Bigelow, A Discourse on Self-Limited Diseases Delivered Before the Massachusetts Medical Society at Their Annual Meeting, May 27, 1835 (Boston: N. Hale, 1835).
74. There are many accounts of Hammond's military career; an excellent one is given in Gillett, (n. 3) The Army Medical Department, pp. 177-226.
75. On Hammond's masterful reorganization of the medical corp see Frank R. Freemon, "Lincoln finds a surgeon general: William A. Hammond and the transfonnation of the Union Army Medical Bureau," Civil War History, 1987, 33, 5-21.
76. Daniel M. Holt, A Surgeon's Civil War. The Letters and Diary of Daniel M. Holt, M.D., eds. James M. Greiner, Janet L. Coryell, and James R. Smither (Kent, Ohio: Kent State University Press, 1994), p. 30.
77. Gillett, (n. 3) The Army Medical Department, p. 201. On Hammond's court-martial, see also Blustein, (n. 27) Perserve Your Love for Science, pp. 86-93.
78. Gillett, (n. 3) The Army Medical Department, p. 201. On Hammond's court-martial, see also Blustein, (n. 27) Perserve Your Love for Science, pp. 86-93.
79. The complete circular no. 6 is reprinted in (n. 2) The Medical and Surgical History of the War, vol. 1, pt. 2, 719.
80. John King, "A home thrust at regular medicine by the surgeon general," Eclectic Med. J., 1863, 22, 294-95, P. 295.
81. Quoted in (n. 2) The Medical and Surgical History of the War, vol. 1, pt. 2, 720.
82. John King, "Calomel with the regulars," Eclectic Med. J., 1863, 22, 433-34, p. 434.
83. "Surgeon General Hammond's order, prohibitiing calomel and tartar-emetic in the army," N. Am. J. Homeopathy 1863, 12, 147-51, 148.
84. Blustein, (n. 27) Presere Your Love for Science, p. 85.
85. E. P. Bennett, "Removel of calomel and tartar emetic from the supply list," Ohio Med. Surg. J., 1863, 6, 347-48, p. 348.
86. Z. P., "Calomel and tartar emetic in the army," Am. Med. Times, 1863, 7, 53-54, P. 54.
87. "Editor's table," The Cincinnati Lancet & Observer, 1863, 6, 369-77, p. 375.
88. Trans. Am. Med. Assoc., 1864, 14, 23, 29-33, PP. 32-33.
89. Blustein, (n. 27) Preserve Your Love for Science, p. 86.
90. A carefully argued and well-reasoned defense was offered by F. J. Hibberd of Richmond, Indiana. See his "Circular no. 6 and the profession," The Cincinnati Lancet & Observer, 1863, 6, 429-34. See also the editorial defense of Hammond in "Calomel and tartar emetic in the army," Am. Med. Times, 1863, 6, 297-98.
91. A carefully argued and well-reasoned defense was offered by F. J. Hibberd of Richmond, Indiana. See his "Circular no. 6 and the profession," The Cincinnati Lancet & Observer, 1863, 6, 429-34. See also the editorial defense of Hammond in "Calomel and tartar emetic in the army," Am. Med. Times, 1863, 6, 297-98.
92. The court preferred three charges against Hammond: (1) "disorders and neglects to the prejudice of good order and military discipline"; (2) "conduct unbecoming an officer"; and (3) "conduct to the prejudice of good order and military discipline." For specifications, see "Charges and specifications," Med. Surg. Rept., 1864, 11, 378-79. All of the charges and the ensuing court-martial proceedings are analyzed in a detailed article published in two parts by Louis C. Duncan, "The strange case of Surgeon General Hammond," The Military Surgeon, 1929, 64, 98-110, 252-62. See also Harvey C. Greisman, "William Hammond and his enemies," Med. Heritage, 1986, 2, 322-31.
93. The court preferred three charges against Hammond: (1) "disorders and neglects to the prejudice of good order and military discipline"; (2) "conduct unbecoming an officer"; and (3) "conduct to the prejudice of good order and military discipline." For specifications, see "Charges and specifications," Med. Surg. Rept., 1864, 11, 378-79. All of the charges and the ensuing court-martial proceedings are analyzed in a detailed article published in two parts by Louis C. Duncan, "The strange case of Surgeon General Hammond," The Military Surgeon, 1929, 64, 98-110, 252-62. See also Harvey C. Greisman, "William Hammond and his enemies," Med. Heritage, 1986, 2, 322-31.
94. The court preferred three charges against Hammond: (1) "disorders and neglects to the prejudice of good order and military discipline"; (2) "conduct unbecoming an officer"; and (3) "conduct to the prejudice of good order and military discipline." For specifications, see "Charges and specifications," Med. Surg. Rept., 1864, 11, 378-79. All of the charges and the ensuing court-martial proceedings are analyzed in a detailed article published in two parts by Louis C. Duncan, "The strange case of Surgeon General Hammond," The Military Surgeon, 1929, 64, 98-110, 252-62. See also Harvey C. Greisman, "William Hammond and his enemies," Med. Heritage, 1986, 2, 322-31.
95. Duncan, (n. 77), p. 254.
96. Hammond's brief farewell message was printed by the very journal which had so vehemently called for his removal. See "Army medical iintelligence," The Cincinnati Lancet & Observer, 1864, 7, 619-20.
97. For details, see Gillett, (n. 3) The Army Medical Department, p. 203.
98. "The dismissal of Surgeon-General Hammond," Med. Times Gazette, 1864, 2, 705-6, p. 706.
99. For an account, see James Evelyn Pilcher, The Surgeon Generals of the Army (Carlisle, Penn.: The Association of Military Surgeons, 1905), pp. 55-57.
100. Adams, (n. 3) Doctors in Blue, p. 41.
101. Gert H. Brieger, "Therapeutic conflicts and the American medical profession in the 1860's" Hist. Hist. Med., 1967, 41, 215-22, p. 218.
102. See, for example, Dammann, (n. 4) Pictorial Encyclopedia, p.4.6; Rothstein, (n. 9) American Physicians, p. 182; Warner, (n. 59) The Therapeutic Perspective, p. 220; James H. Cassedy, Medicine in America: A Short History (Baltimore, Md.: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1991), p. 29. Not everyone agrees, admitting mercury's prominence in the medical armamentarium long after the Civil War. See, for example, Guenter B. Risse, "Calomel and the American medical sects during the nineteenth century," Mayo Clinic Proc. 1973, 48, 57-64, p. 63; and, more recently, Roy Porter, ed., The Cambridge Illustrated History of Medicine (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996), p. 136
103. See, for example, Dammann, (n. 4) Pictorial Encyclopedia, p.4.6; Rothstein, (n. 9) American Physicians, p. 182; Warner, (n. 59) The Therapeutic Perspective, p. 220; James H. Cassedy, Medicine in America: A Short History (Baltimore, Md.: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1991), p. 29. Not everyone agrees, admitting mercury's prominence in the medical armamentarium long after the Civil War. See, for example, Guenter B. Risse, "Calomel and the American medical sects during the nineteenth century," Mayo Clinic Proc. 1973, 48, 57-64, p. 63; and, more recently, Roy Porter, ed., The Cambridge Illustrated History of Medicine (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996), p. 136
104. See, for example, Dammann, (n. 4) Pictorial Encyclopedia, p.4.6; Rothstein, (n. 9) American Physicians, p. 182; Warner, (n. 59) The Therapeutic Perspective, p. 220; James H. Cassedy, Medicine in America: A Short History (Baltimore, Md.: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1991), p. 29. Not everyone agrees, admitting mercury's prominence in the medical armamentarium long after the Civil War. See, for example, Guenter B. Risse, "Calomel and the American medical sects during the nineteenth century," Mayo Clinic Proc. 1973, 48, 57-64, p. 63; and, more recently, Roy Porter, ed., The Cambridge Illustrated History of Medicine (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996), p. 136
105. See, for example, Dammann, (n. 4) Pictorial Encyclopedia, p.4.6; Rothstein, (n. 9) American Physicians, p. 182; Warner, (n. 59) The Therapeutic Perspective, p. 220; James H. Cassedy, Medicine in America: A Short History (Baltimore, Md.: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1991), p. 29. Not everyone agrees, admitting mercury's prominence in the medical armamentarium long after the Civil War. See, for example, Guenter B. Risse, "Calomel and the American medical sects during the nineteenth century," Mayo Clinic Proc. 1973, 48, 57-64, p. 63; and, more recently, Roy Porter, ed., The Cambridge Illustrated History of Medicine (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996), p. 136
106. See, for example, Dammann, (n. 4) Pictorial Encyclopedia, p.4.6; Rothstein, (n. 9) American Physicians, p. 182; Warner, (n. 59) The Therapeutic Perspective, p. 220; James H. Cassedy, Medicine in America: A Short History (Baltimore, Md.: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1991), p. 29. Not everyone agrees, admitting mercury's prominence in the medical armamentarium long after the Civil War. See, for example, Guenter B. Risse, "Calomel and the American medical sects during the nineteenth century," Mayo Clinic Proc. 1973, 48, 57-64, p. 63; and, more recently, Roy Porter, ed., The Cambridge Illustrated History of Medicine (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996), p. 136
107. See, for example, Dammann, (n. 4) Pictorial Encyclopedia, p.4.6; Rothstein, (n. 9) American Physicians, p. 182; Warner, (n. 59) The Therapeutic Perspective, p. 220; James H. Cassedy, Medicine in America: A Short History (Baltimore, Md.: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1991), p. 29. Not everyone agrees, admitting mercury's prominence in the medical armamentarium long after the Civil War. See, for example, Guenter B. Risse, "Calomel and the American medical sects during the nineteenth century," Mayo Clinic Proc. 1973, 48, 57-64, p. 63; and, more recently, Roy Porter, ed., The Cambridge Illustrated History of Medicine (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996), p. 136
108. "Treatment of diarrhœa and dysentery," in (n. 2) The Medical and Surgical History of the War, vol. 1, pt. 2, 718.
109. John M. Scudder, "The new professor," Eclectic Med.J., 1874, 34, 387-88, p. 387. See also Felter, (n. 51) History of the Eclectic Medical Institute, pp. 129-30. The exact nature of this report cited by Scudder is unclear. Unfortunately, efforts to find Jeancon's original report have been unsuccessful. He is not mentioned among the 60 surgeons who responded to Hammond's questionnaire regarding his order (see "Treatment of Diarrhoea and Dysentery," in [n. 2] The Medical and Surgical History of the War, vol. 1, pt. 2, 719) and the Index-Catalogue of the Library of the Surgeon-General's Office. United States Anny, 16 vols. (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 188-1895), 7, 230, lists only his Atlas of Human Anatomy (Cincinnati, 1879).
110. John M. Scudder, "The new professor," Eclectic Med.J., 1874, 34, 387-88, p. 387. See also Felter, (n. 51) History of the Eclectic Medical Institute, pp. 129-30. The exact nature of this report cited by Scudder is unclear. Unfortunately, efforts to find Jeancon's original report have been unsuccessful. He is not mentioned among the 60 surgeons who responded to Hammond's questionnaire regarding his order (see "Treatment of Diarrhoea and Dysentery," in [n. 2] The Medical and Surgical History of the War, vol. 1, pt. 2, 719) and the Index-Catalogue of the Library of the Surgeon-General's Office. United States Anny, 16 vols. (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 188-1895), 7, 230, lists only his Atlas of Human Anatomy (Cincinnati, 1879).
111. John M. Scudder, "The new professor," Eclectic Med.J., 1874, 34, 387-88, p. 387. See also Felter, (n. 51) History of the Eclectic Medical Institute, pp. 129-30. The exact nature of this report cited by Scudder is unclear. Unfortunately, efforts to find Jeancon's original report have been unsuccessful. He is not mentioned among the 60 surgeons who responded to Hammond's questionnaire regarding his order (see "Treatment of Diarrhoea and Dysentery," in [n. 2] The Medical and Surgical History of the War, vol. 1, pt. 2, 719) and the Index-Catalogue of the Library of the Surgeon-General's Office. United States Anny, 16 vols. (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 188-1895), 7, 230, lists only his Atlas of Human Anatomy (Cincinnati, 1879).
112. John M. Scudder, "The new professor," Eclectic Med.J., 1874, 34, 387-88, p. 387. See also Felter, (n. 51) History of the Eclectic Medical Institute, pp. 129-30. The exact nature of this report cited by Scudder is unclear. Unfortunately, efforts to find Jeancon's original report have been unsuccessful. He is not mentioned among the 60 surgeons who responded to Hammond's questionnaire regarding his order (see "Treatment of Diarrhoea and Dysentery," in [n. 2] The Medical and Surgical History of the War, vol. 1, pt. 2, 719) and the Index-Catalogue of the Library of the Surgeon-General's Office. United States Anny, 16 vols. (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 188-1895), 7, 230, lists only his Atlas of Human Anatomy (Cincinnati, 1879).
113. John M. Scudder, "The new professor," Eclectic Med.J., 1874, 34, 387-88, p. 387. See also Felter, (n. 51) History of the Eclectic Medical Institute, pp. 129-30. The exact nature of this report cited by Scudder is unclear. Unfortunately, efforts to find Jeancon's original report have been unsuccessful. He is not mentioned among the 60 surgeons who responded to Hammond's questionnaire regarding his order (see "Treatment of Diarrhoea and Dysentery," in [n. 2] The Medical and Surgical History of the War, vol. 1, pt. 2, 719) and the Index-Catalogue of the Library of the Surgeon-General's Office. United States Anny, 16 vols. (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 188-1895), 7, 230, lists only his Atlas of Human Anatomy (Cincinnati, 1879).
114. Charles H. Hughes, "Surgeon General Hammond's anti-calomel order," St. Louis Med. Surg. J., 1864, 1, 149-52, p. 150.
115. Warner, (n. 59) The Therapeutic Perspective, p. 220.
116. David L. Cowen and Donald F. Kent, "Medical and pharmaceutical practice in 1854," Pharm. Hist., 1997, 39, 91-100; see esp. "epilogue," p. 100.
117. David L. Cowen and Donald F. Kent, "Medical and pharmaceutical practice in 1854," Pharm. Hist., 1997, 39, 91-100; see esp. "epilogue," p. 100.
118. E. N. Gathercoal, The Prescription Ingredient Survey: Consisting of the Ebert Survey of 1885, The Hallberg Survey of 1895, the Hallberg-Snow Survey of 1907, The Charters Survey of 1926, the Cook Survey of 1930, the Gathercoal Survey of 1930, the U.S.P.-N.F. Survey of 1931-32 (Washington, D.C.: American Pharmaceutical Association, 1933). Occurrences are tabulated in an alphabetical listing. Calomel is listed on p. 94 under the heading "mercury chloride, mild."
119. Ibid. Total mercurial agents in all forms were prescribed in 1,016.8 instances per 10,000 occurrences in 1885. In 1907 they dropped to about half that of 1885 (516.8) and fall off markedly thereafter.
120. Warner, (n. 59) The Therapetic Perspective, p. 67.
121. Erwin Ackerknecht, "A plea for a 'behaviorist' approach in writing the history of medicine," J. Hist. Med. Alllied Sciences 1976, 22, 211-14, P. 211.
122. Duffy, (n. 1) From Humors to Medical Science, p. 153.
123. Bonnie Ellen Blustein, "'To increase the efficiency of the medical department': A new approach to U.S. Civil War medicine," Civil War History, 1987, 33, 22-41, p. 22.
124. Ibid., p. 28.
125. Ibid., p. 24.
126. Abraham Flexner, Medical Education in the United States and Canada: A Report to the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, bulletin no. 4 (New York: The Carnegie Foundation, 1910), p. 156. Flexner refers here to the general commitment to theory and dogmatic rationalism common among all practitioners of the period. In this sense, the prevalence of a priori reasoning did indeed make all schools of medical thought indistinguishable from a modern scientific standpoint and consequently equally prone to error. But the social, professional, and political ramifications of these varying dogmas were well defined and real. Flexner and Rothstein understood this very well. On the other hand, some historians (see n. 4) who simply class allopathy along with the major medical sects of nineteenth-century America with no futher explanation or who identify eclectic medicine with folk healing fail to recognize this fact.
127. For an excellent discussion, see Richard H. Shryock, Empricism versus Rationalism in American Medicine, 1650-1950 (Worchester, Mass.: American Antiquarian Society, 1969).
128. Rothstein, (n. 9) American Physicians, p. 23.
129. Blustein, (n. 96), p. 36.
130. William J. Procter, Am. J. Pliann., 1859, 31, 384-91, pp. 385-86.
131. This is a point made by Berman, (n. 10), p. 327. Podophyllum had been shown not to stimulate biliary secretions in the same studies of the 18505 and 18605 which disproved this property in mercury (see n. 15). Still, mercury and podophyllum continued to be widely considered biliary stimulants.
132. "Conservative surgery" began to be practiced by American surgeons before the Civil War. See Austin Flint "Conservative medicine" and John Eric Erichsen "Impressions of American surgery," in Gert H. Brieger, ed., Medical America in the Nineteenth Century: Readings from the Literature, (Baltimore, Md.: The Johns Hopkins Press, 1972), pp. 134-42, 182-89. Allopaths Flint and Erichsen would have agreed with eclectic surgeon Benjamin Hill that z"Amputation is the last resort of a baffled surgery." (Benjamin L. Hill, Lectures on the American Eclectic System of Surgery [Cincinnati, Ohio: W. Phillips, 1850], p. 560).
133. "Conservative surgery" began to be practiced by American surgeons before the Civil War. See Austin Flint "Conservative medicine" and John Eric Erichsen "Impressions of American surgery," in Gert H. Brieger, ed., Medical America in the Nineteenth Century: Readings from the Literature, (Baltimore, Md.: The Johns Hopkins Press, 1972), pp. 134-42, 182-89. Allopaths Flint and Erichsen would have agreed with eclectic surgeon Benjamin Hill that z"Amputation is the last resort of a baffled surgery." (Benjamin L. Hill, Lectures on the American Eclectic System of Surgery [Cincinnati, Ohio: W. Phillips, 1850], p. 560).
134. "Conservative surgery" began to be practiced by American surgeons before the Civil War. See Austin Flint "Conservative medicine" and John Eric Erichsen "Impressions of American surgery," in Gert H. Brieger, ed., Medical America in the Nineteenth Century: Readings from the Literature, (Baltimore, Md.: The Johns Hopkins Press, 1972), pp. 134-42, 182-89. Allopaths Flint and Erichsen would have agreed with eclectic surgeon Benjamin Hill that z"Amputation is the last resort of a baffled surgery." (Benjamin L. Hill, Lectures on the American Eclectic System of Surgery [Cincinnati, Ohio: W. Phillips, 1850], p. 560).
135. William Williams Keen, "Surgical reminiscences of the Civil War," in Addresses and Other Papers (Philadelphia: W. B. Saunders, 1905), p. 433.
136. Hill, Homeopathic Practice of Surgery (Cleveland, Ohio: J. B. Cobb, 1855); and Hill, Lectures (n. 105), p. 560.
137. Hill, Homeopathic Practice of Surgery (Cleveland, Ohio: J. B. Cobb, 1855); and Hill, Lectures (n. 105), p. 560.
138. Felter, (n. 51) History of the Eclectic Medical Institute, pp. 106-7.
139. William Osier, License to Practice (Chicago: American Medical Association, 1889), p. 3.
140. Eclectic Med. J., 1865, 25, 379-80, P. 379.
141. Harald C. Gaier, Thorsons Encyclopaedic Dictionary of Homeopathy (London: Thorsons, 1991), p. 256.