Lincoln's embalmment

[RJNorton]

That was probably me, Toia. I do think I read somewhere that Lincoln's brain was weighed but not retained; unfortunately, as often is the case, I don't remember where. Kees, thank you for tracking down the answer! Eva, your memory was correct!

[Houmes]

(12-27-2014 05:04 PM)loetar44 Wrote:  what Dr. Curtis wrote:
[font=Courier]
"...Dr. Woodward and I proceeded to open the head and remove the brain down to the track of the ball....Not finding it readily, we proceeded to remove the entire brain..."
But I am not seeing anything specific about what happened to the brain

I just found this:

The New York Tribune, April 27, 1865 gives a contemporary account of the funeral train trip from Albany to Buffalo and the arrival at Buffalo. In a second dispatch is said the following:

“As erroneous statements have been in the press, it is necessary to say on the authority of the embalmer and undertaker, that no perceptible change has taken place in the body of the late President since we left Washington. The Washington physicians removed a part of the brain only for the autopsy BUT THIS WAS REPLACED, so that no part of the body whatever is now deficient."

The New York Tribune reports "part of the brain" was removed, although Dr. Curtis wrote that the entire brain was ultimately taken out. In a proper forensic exam of the brain (even in 1865), the entire brain would be removed and sliced in thin sections like a deck of cards. The doctors wouldn't have been able to see all the fractures in the bones around the eyes if the entire brain hadn't been removed. Perhaps they dissected only part of the brain once it was out and left the rest after what they thought was the the bullet track had been identified--the observers in the room included politicians and friends of the president, and this was meant to be a limited autopsy out of respect. When a complete autopsy has been finished, all organs (including the brain) are placed back in the abdominal cavity at the end of procedure. I'm betting they didn't completely section the brain, as it would have been a real feat trying to put a swollen brain (let alone a thinly sliced one) back inside the skull, replace the top of the skull, and sew the scalp back together with a nice appearance. That's why they add the brain in with the abdominal organs--so the top of the skull doesn't start to slide out of place.

[L Verge]

(12-30-2014 06:00 PM)Houmes Wrote:  

(12-27-2014 05:04 PM)loetar44 Wrote:  what Dr. Curtis wrote:
[font=Courier]
"...Dr. Woodward and I proceeded to open the head and remove the brain down to the track of the ball....Not finding it readily, we proceeded to remove the entire brain..."
But I am not seeing anything specific about what happened to the brain

I just found this:

The New York Tribune, April 27, 1865 gives a contemporary account of the funeral train trip from Albany to Buffalo and the arrival at Buffalo. In a second dispatch is said the following:

“As erroneous statements have been in the press, it is necessary to say on the authority of the embalmer and undertaker, that no perceptible change has taken place in the body of the late President since we left Washington. The Washington physicians removed a part of the brain only for the autopsy BUT THIS WAS REPLACED, so that no part of the body whatever is now deficient."

The New York Tribune reports "part of the brain" was removed, although Dr. Curtis wrote that the entire brain was ultimately taken out. In a proper forensic exam of the brain (even in 1865), the entire brain would be removed and sliced in thin sections like a deck of cards. The doctors wouldn't have been able to see all the fractures in the bones around the eyes if the entire brain hadn't been removed. Perhaps they dissected only part of the brain once it was out and left the rest after what they thought was the the bullet track had been identified--the observers in the room included politicians and friends of the president, and this was meant to be a limited autopsy out of respect. When a complete autopsy has been finished, all organs (including the brain) are placed back in the abdominal cavity at the end of procedure. I'm betting they didn't completely section the brain, as it would have been a real feat trying to put a swollen brain (let alone a thinly sliced one) back inside the skull, replace the top of the skull, and sew the scalp back together with a nice appearance. That's why they add the brain in with the abdominal organs--so the top of the skull doesn't start to slide out of place.

Okay, back to my medical directives to insert a phrase that I refuse to be autopsied upon my death...

[LincolnToddFan]

OMG, Laurie you have beat me to it. I am sitting here horrified after reading Houmes' wonderfully detailed but grisly description of the particulars of an autopsy.

When my maternal grandmother died many years ago at 56 from the affects of malignant and uncontrolled hypertension, I always assumed that my mother's refusal to allow an autopsy was a decision made from hysterical grief and confusion. Now I know otherwise. To simply stuff everything back into the abdominal cavity, even the dissected brain?!

[Jim Garrett]

Herb Collins, Curator Emeritus of the Smithsonian's Political Collection recounted that all of Lincoln's blood was preserved (maybe at the Smithsonian). Sounds somewhat ghoulish but very Victorian.

[Hess1865]

But hasn't Lincoln's blood been misplaced or lost??

[LincolnToddFan]

That's what I read too, that it was misplaced or lost. When Dr. Soros(?) was writing his book about the possibility that AL was dying of cancer at the time he was assassinated, he was urgently searching for blood samples. If a sample had been readily available somewhere, wouldn't he have approached that source first?

[RJNorton]

Toia, I think Dr. Sotos was able to obtain a blood sample from a small fragment of the dress allegedly worn by Laura Keene. This piece is privately held, and I do not know the provenance. This testing was included in a National Geographic Channel special titled Lincoln's Secret Killer. Personally, even if the dress fragment is legitimate, I don't know how they would know it's Lincoln's blood and not Rathbone's.

[LincolnToddFan]

(05-05-2013 02:54 PM)Rhatkinson Wrote:  One of the erriest aspects of Lincoln's embalming to me has always been that it was performed in the room where the current first families eat their meals (the former Prince of Wales room is now the family dining room!)

Willie Lincoln also died in this same room.

http://www.whitehousemuseum.org/floor2/p...g-room.htm

I thought it was just me..I shudder every time I imagine presidential family members and their guests, tucking into their steaks cooked rare in the same room in which Abraham Lincoln was autopsied!

---

(01-04-2015 04:02 PM)RJNorton Wrote:  Toia, I think Dr. Sotos was able to obtain a blood sample from a small fragment of the dress allegedly worn by Laura Keene. This piece is privately held, and I do not know the provenance. This testing was included in a National Geographic Channel special titled Lincoln's Secret Killer. Personally, even if the dress fragment is legitimate, I don't know how they would know it's Lincoln's blood and not Rathbone's.

Hi Roger, I saw that episode on NatGeo and I was fascinated by it. However I am not convinced the blood sample even belonged to AL. I have always believed it was Rathbone's. He bled profusely that night all over the State Box and in the foyer of the Peterson House. In the initial minutes after the shooting, first hand accounts say that the president did not bleed much at all.

[RJNorton]

(01-04-2015 10:30 PM)LincolnToddFan Wrote:  In the initial minutes after the shooting, first hand accounts say that the president did not bleed much at all.

Hi Toia. Like you I have read that Lincoln's wound did not really bleed a lot. At the moment I can think of only one eyewitness who maintained her dress was blemished with Lincoln's blood. Seaton Munroe saw Laura Keene afterwords and reported, "Her hair and dress were in disorder, and not only was her gown soaked with Lincoln’s blood, but her hands, ever her cheeks where her fingers had strayed were bedaubed with the sorry stains."

If we are to believe Munroe, then Lincoln bled a lot. But was Munroe confusing Lincoln's blood with Rathbone's? Other than Munroe are there other eyewitness accounts that say Keene's dress was soaked with Lincoln's blood?

[Houmes]

(01-05-2015 05:11 AM)RJNorton Wrote:  

(01-04-2015 10:30 PM)LincolnToddFan Wrote:  In the initial minutes after the shooting, first hand accounts say that the president did not bleed much at all.

Hi Toia. Like you I have read that Lincoln's wound did not really bleed a lot. At the moment I can think of only one eyewitness who maintained her dress was blemished with Lincoln's blood. Seaton Munroe saw Laura Keene afterwords and reported, "Her hair and dress were in disorder, and not only was her gown soaked with Lincoln’s blood, but her hands, ever her cheeks where her fingers had strayed were bedaubed with the sorry stains."

If we are to believe Munroe, then Lincoln bled a lot. But was Monroe confusing Lincoln's blood with Rathbone's? Other than Munroe are there other eyewitness accounts that say Keene's dress was soaked with Lincoln's blood?

Henry Rathbone had a good part of his left upper arm sliced open and he was lucky to have survived. He struggled with Booth while Lincoln was still in his rocking chair, so there was plenty of floor space where Rathbone's blood could have been spilled or sprayed. If Laura Keene truly held Lincoln's head in her lap, she had to either kneel down or sit down on a wet floor--and at some point in her efforts, use either one or both hands to steady herself with that huge dress she was wearing. Her hands, like the dress, could easily have become stained with blood.

I've never read or heard a satisfactory explanation of how Lincoln's gloves, inside the deep pockets of a bulky coat, could become stained with his blood unless the coat was literally soaking wet like a sponge.

[BettyO]

Quote:I've never read or heard a satisfactory explanation of how Lincoln's gloves, inside the deep pockets of a bulky coat, could become stained with his blood unless the coat was literally soaking wet like a sponge.

Fascinating Blaine! Thanks a bunch - perhaps while they were cutting Lincoln's coat off of him (or taking it off), someone with bloody hands reached into Lincoln's pocket and retrieved the gloves for whatever reason? I, too wondered about that - how artifacts in his pockets could become blood stained. More or less, the so-called "stains" could be attributed to rust or some other "rusty" looking substance over the years, which was inadvertently attributed to "bloodstains" - just a thought....

[RJNorton]

Thank you, Dr. Houmes.

Betty, I have also been curious about this. The explanation given by James Cornelius, Curator, Lincoln Collection at the ALPLM is here. I once received an email from a person who thought this was "a stretch to believe."

[Eva Elisabeth]

I 100% think like Dr. Houmes and I'm afraid I find the Curator's explanation not any bit convincing (nevertheless it's cool to see the gloves in a video, thanks, Roger!), this sounds too far-fetched especially as the gloves really look like thoroughly soaked with blood.
Who was the millionaire Mary gave them to and what did he do with them - did he put them on display?

[L Verge]

I would think that someone at some time would have checked to see if the pockets themselves were stained with blood???

---

BTW: Were the gloves found in the pocket of Lincoln's greatcoat or in the pocket of the frock coat to his suit? I have never seen that differentiated.

It would seem to me that one generally takes off one's gloves and puts them in the pocket of the outer coat (i.e. the greatcoat). Lincoln had removed the greatcoat upon entering the box, had he not? The blood would have run into the pockets of his frock coat. Is that where the gloves were found? Not in the pockets of the outer greatcoat? Could the gloves have dropped on the floor at some point and absorbed some of Rathbone's blood? So many questions, so many possibilities.

I'm of the age where I remember wearing kid gloves to church and other functions. Kid gloves are soft, but I don't remember them being easily pliable so that they could be stuffed easily into a pocket - especially a pair as large as what Lincoln would have worn.