Inspired by this article:
Now obviously 1865 is not 2007, but it is interesting at least to me that the doctors who treated Lincoln had an uncommonly good understanding for the day of major crainal trauma and we know from Phineas Gage's case and the many civil war wounded treated that they would have known in principle that some bullet wounds to the head are treatable. So let's say that for whatever reason (distraction, Rathbone needing to pee, whatever) Booth's shot goes off and Lincoln is wounded in the head but in a survivable-with-1860s-medical-treatment fashion. Does this change national reaction (since no martyred Lincoln) How does the nation and government handle a President who is alive but more or less seriously injured or disabled? What determines if he stays on with treatment or resigns? If there are notable changes to Lincoln that are clearly attributed to the injury, does this affect 19th century American thought more broadly?
Would Lincoln Have Survived If He Was Shot Today?
The anatomy of the President's fatal wound, and what modern medicine could have done for him
www.theatlantic.com
Now obviously 1865 is not 2007, but it is interesting at least to me that the doctors who treated Lincoln had an uncommonly good understanding for the day of major crainal trauma and we know from Phineas Gage's case and the many civil war wounded treated that they would have known in principle that some bullet wounds to the head are treatable. So let's say that for whatever reason (distraction, Rathbone needing to pee, whatever) Booth's shot goes off and Lincoln is wounded in the head but in a survivable-with-1860s-medical-treatment fashion. Does this change national reaction (since no martyred Lincoln) How does the nation and government handle a President who is alive but more or less seriously injured or disabled? What determines if he stays on with treatment or resigns? If there are notable changes to Lincoln that are clearly attributed to the injury, does this affect 19th century American thought more broadly?