• Hi Guest!

    The costs of running this forum are covered by Sea Lion Press. If you'd like to help support the company and the forum, visit patreon.com/sealionpress

Lincoln survives the assassination attempt

Roger II

Well-known member
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?
 
It's generally taken that if Lincoln lived, the Reconstruction era would have gone very differently as Johnson couldn't have smothered it in the crib. But a Lincoln that lives but is too unhealth (and consumed with the need for rehab) to do much leading? Either you've got a government that can't do much at all or, more likely, some canny bastard is running things and saying "LINCOLN SAYS" as in the story MAC161 points to - exactly what that looks like would depend on who's doing it and how easily they can sway doubters. Like, I'm not sure Johnson could do it. "Ending things early, are you sure this is what Abe wants, Johnson?"

But a Lincoln that's alive for years and regains some degree of communication skills could be a Lincoln that confirms "I didn't do any of that, it was [whoever]" and that would be a big scandal, one that might reshape how government works in similar cases so this never happens again. (Which could then be a problem for politicians with chronic health issues like FDR and JFK, if people interpret the rules as "better not like THEM in")
 
Yea, TBH I'm as much, if not more, interested in the cultural and social effects of a major public figure essentially having serious neurological issues due to gunshot trauma and having some level of successful-or-not-rehab, and what that does for e.g. American religion, perceptions of medicine and mental health, anxieties about materialism, and so forth, than the perhaps inevitable mayor-of-the-palace situation that develops politically.
 
Back
Top