Page:The Armed Forces Institute of Pathology-ItsFirstCentury.djvu/50

BACKGROUND AND BEGINNINGS

However disappointed Brinton and Woodward may have been at Secretary Stanton's brusque dismissal of their promising plan, they still enjoyed the support of Acting Surgeon General Barnes both in their work on the "History" and on the Museum project. On 25 November 1863, and again on 24 June 1864, Dr. Barnes issued circular letters to all medical officers in aid of the Museum. In the first letter, he invited attention to the possibilities of illustrations and representations of the results of surgical operations by means of plaster casts which, it was said, could "in many instances be conveniently obtained — without subjecting the patient to the slightest inconvenience." It was suggested that cases in which the results of the operation had been unfavorable would be as "instructive and valuable for future reference and study" as those which had resulted favorably.

The 1864 circular of Acting Surgeon General Barnes directed medical officers in charge of hospitals "to diligently collect and preserve for the Army Medical Museum all pathological specimens which may occur in the hospitals under their charge." Listing the types of objects desired, the circular contained directions for forwarding them to the Surgeon General's Office, substantially repeating and reinforcing the "Suggestions" printed in the 1863 Catalogue of the Museum. 20

Under the stimulus of these orders, and as a result of the missionary efforts of the Museum staff, specimens continued to come in, particularly after the great battles. Two barrels, filled with the gruesome materials resulting from the work of the surgeons, were sent in by a member of the Museum staff after Gettysburg.

One specimen from that battle which came in, without need of orders from The Surgeon General or solicitation by Museum staff members, was an amputated leg, received in a small coffin-like box, bearing the visiting card of the donor with the message, "With the compliments of Major General D. E. S." Gen. Daniel E. Sickles, whose leg it was or had been, combined a keen sense of self-advertisement with a high estimation of the importance and interest attached to the severed anatomy of the commanding general of the III Corps. That he was correct in his estimate is evidenced by the fact that even today