If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Mental Floss)   In addition to being America's bloodiest and most racist conflict, the Civil War was also one of the most influential to medicine   (mentalfloss.com) divider line 64
    More: Interesting, Francis Scott Key, Crimean War, standard treatment, reconstruction  
•       •       •

2085 clicks; posted to Geek » on 30 Jul 2012 at 11:54 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



64 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-07-30 09:07:00 PM
bloodiest and most racist conflict so far.
 
2012-07-30 09:18:40 PM
It also inspired at least one great toy
i232.photobucket.com
 
2012-07-30 09:22:04 PM
What about the natives and the Japanese? Where to they rank? Any runners up?
 
2012-07-30 09:47:33 PM
All wars are instrumental to medical advances. Talk to a medical professional about what we've learned in the last 10 years about brain injuries. Take that, pacifists.

//To live better and longer, we must make war!
 
2012-07-30 10:46:12 PM

simsite9: bloodiest and most racist conflict so far.


Nonsense. The Armenian genocide was far more racist, and happened later. So did the Holocaust.

More recent? Let's go Rwanda. Or Darfur.

Only white people? OK, let's go for the Serbs.
 
2012-07-30 10:56:35 PM
The Gettysburg Companion (Amazon), which is only half about the battle, the other half about everything from how units marched to standard battle tactics to what the soldiers ate and their weapons, has an excellent section on battlefield triage and how the wounded were rapidly transported from the field to triage areas and then centralized battlefield hospitals. By 1863 the organization and effectiveness (in terms of getting the soldiers to doctors quickly) was very impressive. Survival rates were still very low by modern standards due to lack of blood transfusions, antibiotics, antiseptic conditions, and the really extensive damage done by .58 cal bullets, but the logistics of casualty transport was quite good.
 
2012-07-30 11:34:25 PM
The advancements in bone saw technology alone made it almost worthwhile
 
2012-07-31 12:03:56 AM
The Civil War was one of those transformative moments in American history--a circumstance in which the genuinely greatest generation in our short history underwent a profound and enduring experience that to this day impacts everything about our politics and lives. It's a shame we've allowed the worst generation in American society (the Baby Boomers) to usurp their rightful place in our history in favor of their parents.
 
2012-07-31 12:14:34 AM

Lsherm: simsite9: bloodiest and most racist conflict so far.

Nonsense. The Armenian genocide was far more racist, and happened later. So did the Holocaust.

More recent? Let's go Rwanda. Or Darfur.

Only white people? OK, let's go for the Serbs.


Psstt...in America...
/MERCA! FARK YEAH!
 
2012-07-31 12:26:50 AM

zulius: Lsherm: simsite9: bloodiest and most racist conflict so far.

Nonsense. The Armenian genocide was far more racist, and happened later. So did the Holocaust.

More recent? Let's go Rwanda. Or Darfur.

Only white people? OK, let's go for the Serbs.

Psstt...in America...
/MERCA! FARK YEAH!


Yeah, good point. Even then, it can only claim the bloodiest. The most racist has to be the civil rights riots in the 1960s.
 
2012-07-31 12:40:04 AM

Lsherm: simsite9: bloodiest and most racist conflict so far.

Nonsense. The Armenian genocide was far more racist, and happened later. So did the Holocaust.

Genocide? Could just be the unintended side effect of an empire crumbling.

 
2012-07-31 12:44:53 AM

Ted Kennedy's Brain Tumor: the genuinely greatest generation


Well, someone slept through the entire 1850s - 1920s unit in his US history class. If anything, the civil war generation was the shiattiest sampling of Americans the nation has ever produced, the farked the country in a way that seemed almost entirely irrecoverable until WWII forced us to shape the hell up, that's pretty thoroughly farked.
 
2012-07-31 12:45:28 AM

Lsherm: zulius: Lsherm: simsite9: bloodiest and most racist conflict so far.

Nonsense. The Armenian genocide was far more racist, and happened later. So did the Holocaust.

More recent? Let's go Rwanda. Or Darfur.

Only white people? OK, let's go for the Serbs.

Psstt...in America...
/MERCA! FARK YEAH!

Yeah, good point. Even then, it can only claim the bloodiest. The most racist has to be the civil rights riots in the 1960s.


geebus cripes.. it says : "bloodiest, most racist..." which means it was most bloody AND most racist. the 1960s riots were the more racist than the civil war you could say, but not more bloody. it only fit the category of most racist.... but of the BLOODIEST conflicts, the civil war is the MOST racist, and of the most RACIST conflicts, the civil war was the most BLOODY. THAT'S what the headline means.

/personally i thin kthe headline is wrong.. i think the indian wars were the most racist and very bloody conflict we've had... i mean, slavery was one issue in the civil war, but not the only issue. the indian wars, by the very name, is oriented entirely around race.
 
2012-07-31 01:01:00 AM

Durindel: Lsherm: zulius: Lsherm: simsite9: bloodiest and most racist conflict so far.

Nonsense. The Armenian genocide was far more racist, and happened later. So did the Holocaust.

More recent? Let's go Rwanda. Or Darfur.

Only white people? OK, let's go for the Serbs.

Psstt...in America...
/MERCA! FARK YEAH!

Yeah, good point. Even then, it can only claim the bloodiest. The most racist has to be the civil rights riots in the 1960s.

geebus cripes.. it says : "bloodiest, most racist..." which means it was most bloody AND most racist. the 1960s riots were the more racist than the civil war you could say, but not more bloody. it only fit the category of most racist.... but of the BLOODIEST conflicts, the civil war is the MOST racist, and of the most RACIST conflicts, the civil war was the most BLOODY. THAT'S what the headline means.

/personally i thin kthe headline is wrong.. i think the indian wars were the most racist and very bloody conflict we've had... i mean, slavery was one issue in the civil war, but not the only issue. the indian wars, by the very name, is oriented entirely around race.


Of for fark's sake - we're arguing about the headline, not the article.

So everyone is right. Good enough? You are right. Feel better? Want me to mail you a medal?
 
2012-07-31 01:03:42 AM

Lsherm: The most racist has to be the civil rights riots in the 1960s.


So rioting to keep black folks under Jim Crow is more racist than killing hundreds of thousands to keep black folks enslaved, got it
 
2012-07-31 01:12:54 AM
You should have seen the time I put it in her pooper.
 
2012-07-31 02:12:31 AM

Aye Carumba: You should have seen the time I put it in her pooper.


Kobe?
 
2012-07-31 02:24:49 AM

simsite9: bloodiest and most racist conflict so far.


Ahh a fellow traveler. Did you also escape from the great fried chicken and watermelon war of the 2170s?
 
2012-07-31 03:42:21 AM
Also did the most to destroy states rights and cement the hold of the feds.
 
2012-07-31 03:42:42 AM

Ted Kennedy's Brain Tumor: It's a shame we've allowed the worst generation in American society (the Baby Boomers) to usurp their rightful place in our history in favor of their parents.


If you think the Boomers are bad, just wait until the Boomer Spawn gets their hands on the reigns.
Their kids will hate them too.
 
2012-07-31 06:00:46 AM
The biggest changes from war have been naval. Naval warfare has never been the same since The War of Northern Aggression. Sail to steam and wood to steel being some of the biggest. Sea mines ( torpedoes back then) were first deployed. Not to mention the first sub kill and rotating gun turret.
 
2012-07-31 06:56:09 AM
I think the conflicts with the indians were far more racist, since there are hardly any of them left.
 
2012-07-31 06:59:12 AM
So was WWII. A large chunk of information in medical textbooks used today has its origins in WWII.
 
2012-07-31 07:05:57 AM

Mid_mo_mad_man: The biggest changes from war have been naval. Naval warfare has never been the same since The War of Northern Aggression. Sail to steam and wood to steel being some of the biggest. Sea mines ( torpedoes back then) were first deployed. Not to mention the first sub kill and rotating gun turret.


Still trying to wash that Confederate flag you plan to hang proudly in the window of your '79 Explorer while you try and remember how to tie the noose for the Saturday night fun fest goober? Get it, hang, ha ha ha. I'm reminded of dolts like you when I read the headline "robber shoots self in leg while trying to get a buck three eighty to buy malt liquor. I'm left to wonder if you have any idea what the population of the south was in 1861 vis-a-vis it's racial ratios. If I was a pale male like you with a room temperature IQ I'd be afraid, very afraid.
 
2012-07-31 07:48:01 AM

Jim_Callahan: Ted Kennedy's Brain Tumor: the genuinely greatest generation

Well, someone slept through the entire 1850s - 1920s unit in his US history class. If anything, the civil war generation was the shiattiest sampling of Americans the nation has ever produced, the farked the country in a way that seemed almost entirely irrecoverable until WWII forced us to shape the hell up, that's pretty thoroughly farked.


And unfortunately the right wing in this country, in the form of the Tea Party and the GOP (which, let's
face it, are the same thing) is desperately trying to get things back to those 'golden years' of
1850-1920.
 
2012-07-31 08:09:34 AM

MartinD-35: Still trying to wash that Confederate flag you plan to hang proudly in the window of your '79 Explorer while you try and remember how to tie the noose for the Saturday night fun fest goober?


The Ford Explorer was introduced in 1990. Your argument is invalid.
 
2012-07-31 08:11:16 AM

MartinD-35: Mid_mo_mad_man: The biggest changes from war have been naval. Naval warfare has never been the same since The War of Northern Aggression. Sail to steam and wood to steel being some of the biggest. Sea mines ( torpedoes back then) were first deployed. Not to mention the first sub kill and rotating gun turret.

Still trying to wash that Confederate flag you plan to hang proudly in the window of your '79 Explorer while you try and remember how to tie the noose for the Saturday night fun fest goober? Get it, hang, ha ha ha. I'm reminded of dolts like you when I read the headline "robber shoots self in leg while trying to get a buck three eighty to buy malt liquor. I'm left to wonder if you have any idea what the population of the south was in 1861 vis-a-vis it's racial ratios. If I was a pale male like you with a room temperature IQ I'd be afraid, very afraid.


i.qkme.me
 
2012-07-31 08:33:23 AM

robohobo: Also did the most to destroy states rights and cement the hold of the feds.


QFT. Lesson for the ages, if you want to keep your rights and freedoms, don't lean on them to take a stand for evil.
 
2012-07-31 08:41:39 AM
Bullshiat. World War I and World War II. World War I gave us advances in trauma care that are still in use (and quite effective) today, and World War II gave us the age of science-based medicine.
 
2012-07-31 08:41:59 AM

MartinD-35: Mid_mo_mad_man: The biggest changes from war have been naval. Naval warfare has never been the same since The War of Northern Aggression. Sail to steam and wood to steel being some of the biggest. Sea mines ( torpedoes back then) were first deployed. Not to mention the first sub kill and rotating gun turret.

Still trying to wash that Confederate flag you plan to hang proudly in the window of your '79 Explorer while you try and remember how to tie the noose for the Saturday night fun fest goober? Get it, hang, ha ha ha. I'm reminded of dolts like you when I read the headline "robber shoots self in leg while trying to get a buck three eighty to buy malt liquor. I'm left to wonder if you have any idea what the population of the south was in 1861 vis-a-vis it's racial ratios. If I was a pale male like you with a room temperature IQ I'd be afraid, very afraid.


I do fly a Confederate flag. The thing is thou, I highly doubt you would know what the strange flag flying from the pole in my yard is. Since you are use to the battle flag.
 
2012-07-31 08:46:40 AM

BronyMedic: Bullshiat. World War I and World War II. World War I gave us advances in trauma care that are still in use (and quite effective) today, and World War II gave us the age of science-based medicine.


But the seeds for the great advances in both of those conflicts were laid in the sod of the battlefields
of the Civil War. Or do you think they just sprang up out of nowhere?
 
2012-07-31 08:58:48 AM

MartinD-35: Mid_mo_mad_man: The biggest changes from war have been naval. Naval warfare has never been the same since The War of Northern Aggression. Sail to steam and wood to steel being some of the biggest. Sea mines ( torpedoes back then) were first deployed. Not to mention the first sub kill and rotating gun turret.

Still trying to wash that Confederate flag you plan to hang proudly in the window of your '79 Explorer while you try and remember how to tie the noose for the Saturday night fun fest goober? Get it, hang, ha ha ha. I'm reminded of dolts like you when I read the headline "robber shoots self in leg while trying to get a buck three eighty to buy malt liquor. I'm left to wonder if you have any idea what the population of the south was in 1861 vis-a-vis it's racial ratios. If I was a pale male like you with a room temperature IQ I'd be afraid, very afraid.


Look up what happened to blacks in NYC when the poor whites found out they had to fight for them. No one liked black men in the 1860's
 
2012-07-31 09:10:37 AM
If you're ever near Frederick MD, check out the Civil War Medicine Museum. It's a pretty good museum for it's size and it goes into this in depth. Pretty interesting stuff.
 
2012-07-31 09:27:01 AM
Most racist conflict?

Hyperbole much?
 
2012-07-31 09:28:07 AM

Tat'dGreaser: If you're ever near Frederick MD, check out the Civil War Medicine Museum. It's a pretty good museum for it's size and it goes into this in depth. Pretty interesting stuff.


That IS a good little museum. There were two things that caught my attention: a lack of supplies forced the Confederate doctors to use horse tail hairs for sutures. Their survival rate actually went up - the hairs were cleaner than the silk they normally used.

And since they were also short of time for the care of wounded, they stopped probing for bullets or fragments unless there was bleeding they needed to stop. The survival rate went up again, since they weren't sticking their dirty fingers or instruments into a man. That explained why my grandfather used to say that when he was a boy, there were men walking around the country who had enough Yankee iron in them to open a junk yard.

The illustration of how to properly do an amputation was enough to ruin lunch, though.
 
2012-07-31 09:28:39 AM
I like how the illiterate progeny of the original illiterate, non land owning, non slave owning, dirt poor Southerners with nothing to gain in that war still think it was the north that done them wrong. But, even though they had nothing to gain in that war, and nothing good coming to them after, they still contributed to the world in a sense by having lots of limbs amputated, brain injuries and becoming corpses to dissect. Yeeahaw! No wonder they are always so eager to line up to be subservient to the upper or religious class of the moment. It's not often you get the chance to get a fancy new wooden leg in exchange for nothing.
 
2012-07-31 09:28:52 AM

dittybopper: MartinD-35: Still trying to wash that Confederate flag you plan to hang proudly in the window of your '79 Explorer while you try and remember how to tie the noose for the Saturday night fun fest goober?

The Ford Explorer was introduced in 1990. Your argument is invalid.


What a 1979 Ford Explorer might look like:

farm5.staticflickr.com
 
2012-07-31 09:31:48 AM
I guess it was a big leap in medicine once the doctors figured out that they could do other things to arms and legs other than to saw them off.
 
2012-07-31 09:35:32 AM
If the goal of the north was to free slaves, then the war would have been more just. But the stated goal of Lincoln at the time was: "If I could save the union without freeing a single slave, I would do so"

Yes the south was trying to protect the slavery institution, which was vile, but they should have had a right to peacefully secede from the union, no matter their vile reasoning.
 
2012-07-31 09:44:44 AM

rudemix: I like how the illiterate progeny of the original illiterate, non land owning, non slave owning, dirt poor Southerners with nothing to gain in that war still think it was the north that done them wrong. But, even though they had nothing to gain in that war, and nothing good coming to them after, they still contributed to the world in a sense by having lots of limbs amputated, brain injuries and becoming corpses to dissect. Yeeahaw! No wonder they are always so eager to line up to be subservient to the upper or religious class of the moment. It's not often you get the chance to get a fancy new wooden leg in exchange for nothing.



My family did own slaves 75 according to tax records from 1859. The war in MO/KS was well underway by then
 
2012-07-31 09:46:40 AM

Mid_mo_mad_man: The biggest changes from war have been naval. Naval warfare has never been the same since The War of Northern Aggression. Sail to steam and wood to steel being some of the biggest. Sea mines ( torpedoes back then) were first deployed. Not to mention the first sub kill and rotating gun turret.


Considering that the South was the side that declared themselves in treasonous rebellion and the side that fired the first shots, it always surprises me that anyone can say those words with a straight face.

Also, the biggest change was that the institution of slavery which the South explicitly went to war because they thought that maybe the Federal Government maybe might outlaw ended up being abolished.
 
2012-07-31 09:50:23 AM
As has been pointed out already, wars are exquisitely effective at advancing medicine. The amount we learned about trauma care in Vietnam (and much of the foundation of which we gained in Korea), and infection prevention & treatment in the two World Wars, are among the myriad examples.

A couple of other things not in the article:

The Crimean War (1853-56) and the American Civil War (1861-65) essentially created the nursing profession.

Confederate hospitals (and the Union blockade) accidentally improved infection prevention and reduced wound fatalities. After a couple of years, the shortage of textiles required Confederate hospitals to find a substitute for suture thread. They found a constantly renewable supply growing out of the asses of horses. Horsehair, however, is a bit too stiff in its natural state, but boiling it made it as good as thread. Meanwhile, northern hospitals were still using thread that, never sterile in the first place, would routinely get wet in transport and storage, and be full of mildew and other microbes.
 
2012-07-31 09:50:46 AM

Mid_mo_mad_man: MartinD-35: Mid_mo_mad_man: The biggest changes from war have been naval. Naval warfare has never been the same since The War of Northern Aggression. Sail to steam and wood to steel being some of the biggest. Sea mines ( torpedoes back then) were first deployed. Not to mention the first sub kill and rotating gun turret.

Still trying to wash that Confederate flag you plan to hang proudly in the window of your '79 Explorer while you try and remember how to tie the noose for the Saturday night fun fest goober? Get it, hang, ha ha ha. I'm reminded of dolts like you when I read the headline "robber shoots self in leg while trying to get a buck three eighty to buy malt liquor. I'm left to wonder if you have any idea what the population of the south was in 1861 vis-a-vis it's racial ratios. If I was a pale male like you with a room temperature IQ I'd be afraid, very afraid.

Look up what happened to blacks in NYC when the poor whites found out they had to fight for them. No one liked black men in the 1860's


The biggest difference, though, is that some of us still fly a flag that was used by a treasonous force explicitly fighting to preserve the institution of slavery.
 
2012-07-31 09:51:17 AM

vossiewulf: The Gettysburg Companion (Amazon), which is only half about the battle, the other half about everything from how units marched to standard battle tactics to what the soldiers ate and their weapons, has an excellent section on battlefield triage and how the wounded were rapidly transported from the field to triage areas and then centralized battlefield hospitals. By 1863 the organization and effectiveness (in terms of getting the soldiers to doctors quickly) was very impressive. Survival rates were still very low by modern standards due to lack of blood transfusions, antibiotics, antiseptic conditions, and the really extensive damage done by .58 cal bullets, but the logistics of casualty transport was quite good.


Thanks for that tip, I'll track it down.

My great-great uncle had his lower jaw shot away at the Battle of Dallas (GA) in May of 1864. I've read his account of the treatment of his injury and I'm amazed what the doctors managed to accomplish. OTOH, it doesn't really make me nostalgic for "the good old days."
 
2012-07-31 09:52:38 AM

MugzyBrown: If the goal of the north was to free slaves, then the war would have been more just. But the stated goal of Lincoln at the time was: "If I could save the union without freeing a single slave, I would do so"

Yes the south was trying to protect the slavery institution, which was vile, but they should have had a right to peacefully secede from the union, no matter their vile reasoning.


Which they were allowed to do up until it became them violently seceding from the Union when they fired the first shot.
 
2012-07-31 09:54:01 AM

meanmutton: Also, the biggest change was that the institution of slavery which the South explicitly went to war because they thought that maybe the Federal Government maybe might outlaw ended up being abolished.


Not really. The south didn't declare war to save slavery, they seceded to save slavery. The battle of fort sumpter was more a land dispute than a war. S. Carolina wanted US troops of what they said was their land and the US was moving troops and resupplying a key fort.
 
2012-07-31 09:58:35 AM

meanmutton: Mid_mo_mad_man: The biggest changes from war have been naval. Naval warfare has never been the same since The War of Northern Aggression. Sail to steam and wood to steel being some of the biggest. Sea mines ( torpedoes back then) were first deployed. Not to mention the first sub kill and rotating gun turret.

Considering that the South was the side that declared themselves in treasonous rebellion and the side that fired the first shots, it always surprises me that anyone can say those words with a straight face.

Also, the biggest change was that the institution of slavery which the South explicitly went to war because they thought that maybe the Federal Government maybe might outlaw ended up being abolished.


Perhaps you overlook the issue that Federal troops had illegally occupied Ft. Sumter, and that they were being supplied by commercial vessels carrying military material, violating the terms of Armistice entered into on December 6, 1860.

Confederate leaders had hoped for a peaceful Secession - President Lincoln and his advisors had actively made plans for an invasion. Lincoln even had Seward tell the Confederate Peace Commissioners in Washington that "that they had no design to reinforce Fort Sumter."

www.scv674.org
 
2012-07-31 10:04:45 AM

meanmutton: Mid_mo_mad_man: MartinD-35: Mid_mo_mad_man: The biggest changes from war have been naval. Naval warfare has never been the same since The War of Northern Aggression. Sail to steam and wood to steel being some of the biggest. Sea mines ( torpedoes back then) were first deployed. Not to mention the first sub kill and rotating gun turret.

Still trying to wash that Confederate flag you plan to hang proudly in the window of your '79 Explorer while you try and remember how to tie the noose for the Saturday night fun fest goober? Get it, hang, ha ha ha. I'm reminded of dolts like you when I read the headline "robber shoots self in leg while trying to get a buck three eighty to buy malt liquor. I'm left to wonder if you have any idea what the population of the south was in 1861 vis-a-vis it's racial ratios. If I was a pale male like you with a room temperature IQ I'd be afraid, very afraid.

Look up what happened to blacks in NYC when the poor whites found out they had to fight for them. No one liked black men in the 1860's

The biggest difference, though, is that some of us still fly a flag that was used by a treasonous force explicitly fighting to preserve the institution of slavery.


I'm guessing your point is that I should be ashamed of my families past? Sorry, I won't. Be a greater shame to hide the past.
 
2012-07-31 10:07:05 AM
But, but, STATES RIGHTS!

/Wipes spittle off lips with back of hand.
 
2012-07-31 11:08:35 AM

Kraftwerk Orange: Perhaps you overlook the issue that Federal troops had illegally occupied Ft. Sumter, and that they were being supplied by commercial vessels carrying military material, violating the terms of Armistice entered into on December 6, 1860.


How can federal troops illegally occupy a federal fort? That doesn't make any sense at all.

And seceding is itself an act of treason. There is no such thing as a peaceful secession, or a right of secession, as alleged by S.C. The Constitution is not a contract which can be invalidated by the breach of one party - it is a compact which is enforced by the majority against the minority, where the federal government is superior to the states.
 
Displayed 50 of 64 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report