2007.05.17: May 17, 2007: Headlines: COS - Peru: Internet: Publishing: Editing: Medicine: Community Development: Slashdot: PCOL posts: Modern Medicine Might Have Saved Lincoln
Peace Corps Online:
Directory:
Peru:
Special Report: Peru RPCV and Editor/Publisher Hugh Pickens:
2007.05.17: May 17, 2007: Headlines: COS - Peru: Internet: Publishing: Editing: Medicine: Community Development: Slashdot: PCOL posts: Modern Medicine Might Have Saved Lincoln
PCOL posts: Modern Medicine Might Have Saved Lincoln
Pcol writes "For the past 13 years the University of Maryland School of Medicine has presented a historical clinicopathological conference where they consider famous historical medical cases such as the death of Alexander the Great and composer Ludwig van Beethoven and provide a modern diagnosis and treatment in each case. This year Dr. Thomas M. Scalea, physician-in-chief for the R Adams Cowley Shock Trauma Center discusses if the world's first center for trauma victims could have improved the outcome had Lincoln's assassination occurred in 2007. 'This could be a recoverable injury, with a reasonable expectation he would survive,' Scalea said, noting that assassin's weapon was relatively impotent compared to the firepower now on the streets today. The modern prognosis predicts that Lincoln might have conceivably recovered enough to return to the White House to complete his second term." RPCV Hugh Pickens served as a Peace Corps Volunteer in Peru from 1970 to 1973 has continued his service on the third goal as the publisher and co-editor of "Peace Corps Online" since 1999.
PCOL posts: Modern Medicine Might Have Saved Lincoln
Modern Medicine Might Have Saved Lincoln
Posted by Zonk on Friday May 18, @03:42PM
from the quickly-to-the-delorean dept.
Biotech Science
Pcol writes "For the past 13 years the University of Maryland School of Medicine has presented a historical clinicopathological conference where they consider famous historical medical cases such as the death of Alexander the Great and composer Ludwig van Beethoven and provide a modern diagnosis and treatment in each case. This year Dr. Thomas M. Scalea, physician-in-chief for the R Adams Cowley Shock Trauma Center discusses if the world's first center for trauma victims could have improved the outcome had Lincoln's assassination occurred in 2007. 'This could be a recoverable injury, with a reasonable expectation he would survive,' Scalea said, noting that assassin's weapon was relatively impotent compared to the firepower now on the streets today. The modern prognosis predicts that Lincoln might have conceivably recovered enough to return to the White House to complete his second term."
[+] biotech, science (tagging beta)
Original Story
Path of the Assassin's Bullet
Besides that Mrs. Lincoln...
(Score:5, Funny)
by andy314159pi (787550) Alter Relationship on Friday May 18, @03:44PM (#19183451)
(Last Journal: Wednesday April 11, @05:54PM)
Besides that Mrs. Lincoln... how was the play?
--
You don't eat or drink or mow the lawn;
You just type on Slashdot all day long.
[ Reply to This ]
Re:Besides that Mrs. Lincoln...
(Score:5, Funny)
by Daychilde (744181) Alter Relationship <postmaster@daychilde.com> on Friday May 18, @03:56PM (#19183685)
(http://www.daychilde.com/)
Too soon! Too soon! ;-)
--
A cheerful little bird is sitting here singing.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Re:Besides that Mrs. Lincoln...
(Score:1)
by andy314159pi (787550) Alter Relationship on Friday May 18, @03:57PM (#19183701)
(Last Journal: Wednesday April 11, @05:54PM)
awww, but I followed the 125 years until it's funny rule!
--
You don't eat or drink or mow the lawn;
You just type on Slashdot all day long.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Re:Besides that Mrs. Lincoln...
(Score:2)
by shark72 (702619) Alter Relationship on Friday May 18, @04:47PM (#19184441)
"Too soon! Too soon! ;-)"
So I suppose it's too early to say "Other than that, Jackie, how was the motorcade?"
--
Always "interesting," never "insightful."
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Re:Besides that Mrs. Lincoln...
(Score:1)
by Daychilde (744181) Alter Relationship <postmaster@daychilde.com> on Saturday May 19, @09:06AM (#19190239)
(http://www.daychilde.com/)
Depends. WTF does Jackie Chan have to do with this? /Zing! ;-)
--
A cheerful little bird is sitting here singing.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Re:Besides that Mrs. Lincoln...
(Score:2)
by creimer (824291) Alter Relationship on Friday May 18, @04:05PM (#19183819)
(http://www.creimer.ws/ | Last Journal: Friday January 26, @01:40PM)
It was bloody mess! The worst night in my life. But play wasn't that bad.
--
Once Upon An Albatross... [creimer.ws]
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Re:Besides that Mrs. Lincoln...
(Score:3, Funny)
by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 18, @04:47PM (#19184439)
I've heard Our American Cousin is a dreadful play. Forget modern medicine- with modern technology, the Lincolns could have just stayed in the White House and popped in a DVD that evening.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
This Just in...
(Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 18, @05:13PM (#19184801)
Modern Medicine Might Have Been Able to Kill Jesus..for good!
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Re:Besides that Mrs. Lincoln...
(Score:2)
by pilgrim23 (716938) Alter Relationship on Friday May 18, @05:52PM (#19185359)
Linclon...hummm wasn't he an obscure railroad lawyer who's main claim to fame was the part he played in the eventual death of a famous actor of that time?
--
- Minutus cantorum, minutus balorum, minutus carborata descendum pantorum.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
and in another 100 years...
(Score:5, Funny)
by SparkyFlooner (1090661) Alter Relationship on Friday May 18, @06:17PM (#19185597)
...they'll announce "We finally have the technology to save Lincoln."
Obligatory Joke:
If Lincoln were alive, what would he be doing today?
Clawing desperately at the lid of his coffin.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Re:Besides that Mrs. Lincoln...
(Score:2, Funny)
by TheLordFlower (1102763) Alter Relationship on Friday May 18, @06:27PM (#19185701)
Did you know modern medicine could have stopped millions from dying of the black plague? Imagine that.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Re:Besides that Mrs. Lincoln...
(Score:1)
by whoop (194) Alter Relationship on Friday May 18, @08:21PM (#19186767)
(http://jcorey.org/)
Where are Bill & Ted when you really need them?
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Rin 2007..
(Score:2)
by mrbluze (1034940) Alter Relationship on Saturday May 19, @06:38AM (#19189691)
(Last Journal: Sunday April 29, @07:28AM)
Rather than be elected for president, he'd probably have ended up in the slammer as an enemy combatant, what with the beared, the close-set eyes and that untrustworthy facial expression.
--
Do it yourself, 'cause no one else will do it yourself.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
1 reply beneath your current threshold.
#
so, what this article is saying is...
(Score:5, Insightful)
by yagu (721525) * Alter Relationship <yayagu@gmai l . com> on Friday May 18, @03:44PM (#19183457)
(Last Journal: Monday January 08, @11:43PM)
So, what this article is saying is, "Today's technology better than technology 150 years ago..."
And, as pointed out in the article, the weapon used then was relatively impotent. Would it not be safe to consider that if the assassination were committed today the assassin likely would have also used updated technology (i.e., something more, ahem, potent)?
[ Reply to This ]
Re:so, what this article is saying is...
(Score:3, Insightful)
by peragrin (659227) Alter Relationship on Friday May 18, @03:52PM (#19183611)
Like a ricin pellet inside an umbrella, and tap the guy on the leg?
--
i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Re:so, what this article is saying is...
(Score:1)
by SomeWhiteGuy (920943) Alter Relationship on Friday May 18, @03:54PM (#19183647)
(http://cs.selu.edu/~bhall)
Not necessarily the technology but the methods. Classic case of 'hind sight is 20/20'.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Re:so, what this article is saying is...
(Score:5, Funny)
by zippthorne (748122) Alter Relationship <zipp-post@noSpaM.usa.net> on Friday May 18, @04:04PM (#19183795)
No it isn't. If it was, Lincoln might not have even been hit!
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Re:so, what this article is saying is...
(Score:5, Insightful)
by eln (21727) Alter Relationship on Friday May 18, @03:57PM (#19183703)
Sure, but the assassin probably wouldn't have been able to get within 30 yards of the President's seats at the theatre either, and probably wouldn't have even been able to get within a block of the theatre without being sent through a couple of metal detectors, patted down, and getting a background check done either. Even then, he probably would have had to have raised a lot of money for the Republican party to get into the theatre itself.
I think this article is just a pat on the back to the medical research community for how far we've come. Clearly, there is so much different now in terms of security, weaponry available, and etc, that you could never say that Lincoln would have survived now, or even that there would have been a serious attempt on his life. Hell, in Lincoln's day anyone could just walk right up to the White House, knock on the front door, and request an audience. These days, you can't even get close.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Re:so, what this article is saying is...
(Score:5, Interesting)
by jfengel (409917) Alter Relationship on Friday May 18, @04:14PM (#19183961)
(http://slashdot.org/ | Last Journal: Monday November 03, @04:59PM)
It's kind of astonishing to think that security around the President was so much less then. It's not like they didn't know that people had a gripe against Lincoln. Yeah, nobody had assassinated a President before, but sovereign rulers had been the target of people with grievances before.
I wonder if they were just naive about security, or if perhaps it was a more genteel time in general.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Re:so, what this article is saying is...
(Score:3, Insightful)
by sexyrexy (793497) Alter Relationship on Friday May 18, @04:18PM (#19184039)
I think it was a far more civilized time in many respects. For example, I think it's a pretty recent development that a non-trivial bloc of the population would actually cheer for the assassination of President Bush. Now, regardless of whether we agree with his policies, I find that pretty disgusting. I think partisanship and common decency have plunged to new depths just as human rights overall and quality of life have risen to great heights.
--
Rex is 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Re:so, what this article is saying is...
(Score:5, Interesting)
by jfengel (409917) Alter Relationship on Friday May 18, @04:27PM (#19184173)
(http://slashdot.org/ | Last Journal: Monday November 03, @04:59PM)
It's kind of ironic, given that Americans had just fought their bloodiest war ever, to call it a more "civilized time".
It's often said that people were more civil to each other in the past. I'm not certain if it's true, or if it's just rose-colored glasses.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Re:so, what this article is saying is...
(Score:5, Funny)
by Puff of Logic (895805) Alter Relationship on Friday May 18, @05:07PM (#19184713)
It's kind of ironic, given that Americans had just fought their bloodiest war ever, to call it a more "civilized time".
On the contrary, it was the most civil war we ever had.
--
Who meta-moderates the meta-moderators?
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Uncivilized Government
(Score:1)
by MonkeyCookie (657433) Alter Relationship on Friday May 18, @06:24PM (#19185663)
The United States was a rough place back then. I recall an incident that occurred in Congress (I think in the Senate) back in the 1840's or 1850's, where one senator got really angry with another, and severely beat the other senator with a cane right there on the Senate floor. Backwoodsmen-types who were elected to Congress from the newer states on the frontier tended to be particularly prone to rowdy behavior.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Uncivilized Government - Linky
(Score:2)
by MonkeyCookie (657433) Alter Relationship on Friday May 18, @06:30PM (#19185751)
Ah, I finally found a link to something talking about this incident [wikipedia.org]
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Re:so, what this article is saying is...
(Score:2)
by DerekLyons (302214) Alter Relationship <<fairwater> <at> <gmail.com>> on Friday May 18, @08:39PM (#19186851)
It's often said that people were more civil to each other in the past. I'm not certain if it's true, or if it's just rose-colored glasses.
It's very true - and I've seen the decline within my own lifetime. (I'm currently 43.)
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
They weren't
(Score:3, Informative)
by Moraelin (679338) Alter Relationship on Saturday May 19, @03:18AM (#19188841)
(Last Journal: Monday June 21, @05:25PM)
They weren't more civil at any point in time, except in some formal settings. We can probably say that when gentlemen met at a posh club, they weren't calling each other cocksuckers, but then again even today they still don't. Move out of that setting, though, and it wasn't some rose-coloured golden age of being nice.
For starters, in that same age, they had just fought a war over, you know, _slavery_. People were bought and sold, treated in some cases worse than cattle, and savagely whipped or occasionally executed on a whim. How's that for being nice to one's fellow humans?
And speaking of that civil war, it saw its share of such colourful characters as Bloody Bill Anderson [wikipedia.org]. The guy was _proud_ of applying terror tactics and executions not only against captured soldiers, but against civillian union sympathisers too.
Newspapers had not yet discovered that it pays to at least pretend to be impartial and objective. Yeah, I know they still aren't really, but back then they didn't even bother pretending. Lopsided, inflamatory and outright insulting journalism was the order of the day. Mud-slinging and outright libel were just normal political tools.
And then you should see what they said about other races and people. If you think nowadays' coverage of Iraq was a shame, back then it was orders of magnitude worse. It was for example the age of "white man's burden" and "mission to civilize" theories, where three quarters of the globe (including such civilizations like China or Japan) were presented as worse than Neanderthals, and it was the _burden_ of us poor white guys from the west to go sneer at them and shaft them, as some civilizing mission. And that was actually the _nice_ version.
It was also the age of such things as train robberies. No, they didn't jump into the train from horseback like in the movies. They just derailed the train, lots of people died, and the survivors got robbed.
It was the age of driving the natives out of their lands, and the occasional massacre. Custer for example wasn't a gentleman soldier in the war against savages, as the media at the time presented him. He was a guy who massacred whole camps, including a good percentage of the women and children, and held the survivors hostage (again, unarmed women and children) to force the rest of the tribe to accept being pushed into a reservation.
Etc, etc, etc.
The past _never_ was as cheerfully rose coloured as naive nostalgia presents it. That goes not only for the 19'th century. The Renaissance wasn't a cheerful age, like ren faires would have you believe, but a shithole that turned the whole european culture morbid and depressive for centuries. The knights in shiny armour weren't ideals of chivalry, but... well, let's just say that one manual for knights advised them to literally beat their wives senseless (as in, literally, until she loses consciousness) to keep them in line, and to break the wife's nose so other men won't find her pretty any more. And that's just one of the many atrocities of that caste. Etc.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Re:so, what this article is saying is...
(Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 19, @09:47AM (#19190363)
Well said, sir -- the horrors of the American Civil War dwarf anything we're ever likely to face. But one of the characteristics of living in the developed world in the early 21st century is that almost all of us (certainly just about anyone contributing to /.) live in amazing security and luxury compared with people in other times -- and yet we seem to imagine that we're somehow in great peril and that things were easier then...
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Re:so, what this article is saying is...
(Score:2)
by Johnny5000 (451029) Alter Relationship on Friday May 18, @04:32PM (#19184249)
(http://slashdot.org/)
For example, I think it's a pretty recent development that a non-trivial bloc of the population would actually cheer for the assassination of President Bush. Now, regardless of whether we agree with his policies, I find that pretty disgusting.
People cheer when murderers get the chair, when Saddam Hussein was hanged, when terrorists get shot or blown up, etc.
I guess it all depends on how much someone is hated, and whether in their opinion someone's death makes the world a better place.
--
Food is free for the taking for every other animal on earth, except humans (in our culture.)
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Re:so, what this article is saying is...
(Score:2)
by Hoi Polloi (522990) Alter Relationship on Friday May 18, @04:54PM (#19184561)
I find the people who cheer other's deaths are as creepy as the people being killed.
--
It is by the juice of the coffee bean that thoughts acquire speed, the teeth acquire stains. The stains become a warning
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Re:so, what this article is saying is...
(Score:2)
by xerxesVII (707232) Alter Relationship on Friday May 18, @05:27PM (#19185029)
Why do you find the people being killed creepy at all? It's not like it was their choice.
--
Due to mods' varying senses of humor, I'm pretty well relegated to trolldom now.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Re:so, what this article is saying is...
(Score:1)
by AmiAthena (798358) Alter Relationship on Friday May 18, @06:16PM (#19185569)
(http://www.jokeped.com/)
Perhaps Hoi Polloi was referring to the act of people being killed, not the people themselves, as creepy.
--
Grammar peeve of the month: I know it ends with -ly, but I swear to you that "timely" is an adjective.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Re:so, what this article is saying is...
(Score:1)
by sesshomaru (173381) Alter Relationship on Friday May 18, @04:36PM (#19184311)
(http://darkcyclone0.tripod.com/snyktn.html | Last Journal: Thursday August 03, @03:55PM)
For example, I think it's a pretty recent development that a non-trivial bloc of the population would actually cheer for the assassination of President Bush.
Wait, what?!?
Your statement has confused me. We are speaking, I believe, about a time in history when the United States of America was in the throes of a brutal civil war. We're talking about massive armed rebellion against Lincoln's government, including such things as ironclads, the 19th century's superweapon and large amounts of professionally trained soldiers. All of this was specifically because a significant portion of the population was horrified at the election of Lincoln. It was specifically against Lincoln and the policies they expected him to enact.
Thousands of people cheered the assassination of Lincoln and feted John Wilkes Booth as a hero, a Brutus of the modern world (this was how he saw himself, as well).
Just because they lost the war, doesn't mean they weren't cheering Lincoln's assassination.
--
...each carried a huge funnel and I realized with horror that I'd seen this awful thing before...
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Re:so, what this article is saying is...
(Score:2)
by cayenne8 (626475) Alter Relationship on Friday May 18, @05:46PM (#19185295)
(http://www.outpimp.com/?x=57020 | Last Journal: Tuesday November 01, @06:08PM)
"Your statement has confused me. We are speaking, I believe, about a time in history when the United States of America was in the throes of a brutal civil war. We're talking about massive armed rebellion against Lincoln's government..."
Ah yes....the War of Northern Agression, I studied that in my history books.
--
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Re:so, what this article is saying is...
(Score:2)
by cayenne8 (626475) Alter Relationship on Friday May 18, @05:48PM (#19185321)
(http://www.outpimp.com/?x=57020 | Last Journal: Tuesday November 01, @06:08PM)
D'oh....gotta learn to hit preview first.
War of Northern Aggression
--
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
You mean the War of Southern Hypocrisy :-)
(Score:2)
by A nonymous Coward (7548) * Alter Relationship on Friday May 18, @06:18PM (#19185603)
The usual pro-confederacy arguments are that they were fighting for states' rights and not for slavery. These are both patently false.
The southern states were the ones arguing for federal supremacy over states. They wanted the federal government to enforce slavery laws in free states. They argued that a slave owner should retain ownership of those slaves while traveling in free states, and that slaves who escaped to free states should be returned to their owners. Hardly a states rights position!
The war of 1812 was a disaster, economically, for the New England states which depended so heavily on trade. They spent three years getting up the nerve to send a delegation to Washington to bring up the subject of secession, but the war ended before they could do anything. The southern states were the most vocal in condemning secession as treason. How interesting that when their ox was being gored, they acted immediately, not even trying to negotiate with the federal government. So much for honor!
As for economics, which is the usual neo-confedrate blame for northern aggression, it was slavery which put the south at a disadvantage, in that it made labor so cheap that industrialization was too expensive. It really hurt the small farmers who had to do their own labor. I have never understood why poor whites, then or now, backed the slavery system which kept them in poverty. No self-employed man can compete with slaves. The expense of overseers doesn't come close to compensating for the cheap maintenance (crowded crappy housing, no elders to take care of) of slaves.
It was a war for the rich white southerners. Nobody else would have benefited from secession.
--
Don't give your right name, no no no --- Fats Waller
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Re:You mean the War of Southern Hypocrisy :-)
(Score:1)
by ewl1217 (922107) Alter Relationship on Friday May 18, @07:38PM (#19186447)
I have never understood why poor whites, then or now, backed the slavery system which kept them in poverty.
You're focusing on the economic side of things, forgetting social implications. Those "poor whites" saw nothing morally wrong with slavery (or else they wouldn't have supported it), and slavery kept them from being the bottom rung on the social ladder. You have to remember that even the poorest white man had more social standing than a slave, and that is sometihng that they didn't want to give up.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Re:You mean the War of Southern Hypocrisy :-)
(Score:2)
by Evilest Doer (969227) Alter Relationship on Friday May 18, @11:03PM (#19187741)
It was a war for the rich white southerners. Nobody else would have benefited from secession.
Well, sorry to state the obvious, but wars are generally fought by poor people for the benefit of rich people. Just look at the one we are in now.
--
I really, really hate your freedom.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Re:so, what this article is saying is...
(Score:2)
by BakaHoushi (786009) Alter Relationship <Goss...Sean@@@gmail...com> on Friday May 18, @04:41PM (#19184375)
(http://bakahoushi.deviantart.com/)
I'm not sure that's true. We've just grown in population exponentially since then, thus increasing the number of horrific maniacs in the world. (If, for example, you could say 1 out of every 1,000,000 persons will commit a heinous crime) On top of that, is it that we have sunk into new lows as a whole, or are we now merely more open about our more base instincts today? I'm sure plenty of Southerners cheered when they heard news of Lincoln's death. Though their voices were probably not heard. How many of them could read and write? They certainly had no LiveJournal or MySpace to complain on.
Or perhaps even social taboos simply prohibited them from expressing such feelings in ANY form.
People are people, and in base instincts, we often can desire to see great enemies suffer and die. I ask, has this changed?
--
"First God made idiots. That was for practice. Then He made school boards." -Mark Twain
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Re:so, what this article is saying is...
(Score:1)
by fishbowl (7759) Alter Relationship <jmcgill@email.ar ... u minus caffeine> on Friday May 18, @06:22PM (#19185645)
>How many of them could read and write?
Some fairly thorough studies of literacy rates were done by the Postal Service before and after the war. I am sure that you could find real data if you were interested. What I remember about it is that literacy rates for whites declined during the reconstruction period while literacy rates for blacks soared.
--
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Re:so, what this article is saying is...
(Score:2)
by darkonc (47285) Alter Relationship <stephen_samuel@b ... .com minus berry> on Friday May 18, @04:52PM (#19184533)
(http://bcgreen.com/~samuel | Last Journal: Friday April 30, @03:42PM)
I'm not sure that that many Americans would actually cheer Bush's assassination. I can, however, see a large, collective sigh of relief. Unfortunately, It's quite possible that that sigh might be short-lived. I'm not at all convinced that 'shure-shot' Cheney would make a much better president than Bush. On the (somewhat) bright side, I doubt that he could be much worse.
--
Don't think that a small group of dedicated individuals can't change the world. it's the only thing that ever has.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Re:so, what this article is saying is...
(Score:1)
by ral315 (741081) Alter Relationship on Friday May 18, @05:09PM (#19184737)
I disagree. Remember, the assassination is just 10 years removed from the time when a United States Representative beat another Representative [wikipedia.org] with a cane on the House floor. Over time, we tend to remember the good things and gloss over the bad.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Re:so, what this article is saying is...
(Score:2)
by Martin Blank (154261) Alter Relationship on Friday May 18, @05:43PM (#19185249)
(Last Journal: Tuesday November 26, @08:28PM)
I'd watch CSPAN if there were a chance of this happening during debates now. Instead we either get $MAJORITY_PARTY bending the rules into pretzels to prevent the other side from getting their fair say, or we get both parties working together to further sweeten their little corners of the world.
--
You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Re:so, what this article is saying is...
(Score:4, Interesting)
by Hijacked Public (999535) * Alter Relationship on Friday May 18, @05:14PM (#19184821)
Almost certainly plenty of people cheered Lincoln's death back then, they just weren't the people who wrote our history books.
Even today there are people who can make a convincing case that Lincoln was just as crooked and underhanded, if not more so, than Bush.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Re:so, what this article is saying is...
(Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 19, @10:06AM (#19190465)
Too True - INSMHO, He was the worst thing to happen to the USA since its founding, and has since been used as an excuse for more "bas stuff"...
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Re:so, what this article is saying is...
(Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 19, @11:45AM (#19190947)
Even today there are people who can make a convincing case that Lincoln was just as crooked and underhanded, if not more so, than Bush.
Who? Now I'm curious. What sort of person would make such an assertion? And do they also believe that Taft was just as thin as Truman?
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Re:so, what this article is saying is...
(Score:2)
by Frostalicious (657235) Alter Relationship on Friday May 18, @05:18PM (#19184871)
(Last Journal: Monday March 31, @03:01PM)
I think partisanship and common decency have plunged to new depths
Why does partisanship have to have anything to do with one's hatred of someone? I would be pretty pleased if Bush got offed, for completely non-partisan reasons. I mean I don't even live in that so called country. I notice a disturbing trend where people, mostly in the US, misattribute all motivation to partisanship, which in itself appears to be partisan.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Re:so, what this article is saying is...
(Score:2)
by Hatta (162192) Alter Relationship on Friday May 18, @05:23PM (#19184951)
(Last Journal: Monday November 28, @01:21PM)
I think it was a far more civilized time in many respects.
Such as their elegant weapons.
--
Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos.
I'm offended by censorship.
Patriotism is akin to racism.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Re:so, what this article is saying is...
(Score:2)
by e2d2 (115622) Alter Relationship on Friday May 18, @05:37PM (#19185167)
So if they try to actually kill the president back then it's a more civilized time and if they just voice their opinion today it's less civilized?
I'll take less civilized for 1000 Alex.
In all seriousness, Lincoln was far from loved then. This should be obvious by the fact that someone killed him and Booth was not alone in his conspiracy. Also, I bet if he traveled to say, Charleston South Carolina, his welcome would not have been friendly.
--
Nothing. I want nothing - Hunter S. Thompson
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Re:so, what this article is saying is...
(Score:2)
by The One and Only (691315) Alter Relationship <phil@philwelch.net> on Friday May 18, @06:49PM (#19185959)
(http://philwelch.net/)
The CIvil War was a "more civilized time"? When one half of the country slaughtered countless thousands for the right to keep slaves and the other half of the country slaughtered countless thousands in order to keep in control of the other half? You're crazy.
--
Q. Are you being paid by the word? A. Indeed! Verily, I am!
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Re:so, what this article is saying is...
(Score:2)
by cp.tar (871488) Alter Relationship <cp.tar.bz2@gmail.com> on Friday May 18, @08:52PM (#19186929)
Well, you were doing it in your own back yard, not everywhere in the world...
--
EULA:
By reading this sig, you agree to any and all opinions stated in the above post.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Re:so, what this article is saying is...
(Score:2)
by Daniel Dvorkin (106857) * Alter Relationship on Saturday May 19, @10:18AM (#19190501)
(http://www.sff.net/people/Daniel.Dvorkin | Last Journal: Wednesday April 04, @01:26PM)
I think it was a far more civilized time in many respects. For example, I think it's a pretty recent development that a non-trivial bloc of the population would actually cheer for the assassination of President Bush. Now, regardless of whether we agree with his policies, I find that pretty disgusting. I think partisanship and common decency have plunged to new depths just as human rights overall and quality of life have risen to great heights.
There was a pretty substantial bloc of the population that cheered Lincoln's assassination, you can be sure. And, in case you;ve forgotten, when Lincoln was shot, Americans had just got done with four years of mutual slaughter that cost more lives than all our other wars combined. 3400 dead in Iraq? Hell, in those days they could spend that quantity of blood in an hour. (And, of course, Europe was just beginning the political process that would lead them, in another couple of generations, to Verdun and the Somme, which made even Gettysburg look like a minor tiff.) The nineteenth century may have been a much more polite time, but in terms of concern for human life, we're paragons of virtue these days compared to our forebears.
--
Harry Turtledove recommends Dawn Crescent [dvorkin.com]
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Re:so, what this article is saying is...
(Score:5, Informative)
by OldeTimeGeek (725417) Alter Relationship on Friday May 18, @04:36PM (#19184307)
He absolutely did have security. The following is excerpted from the White House security review after an airplane landed in the White House grounds in 1994 (the whole report: http://www.fas.org/irp/agency/ustreas/usss/t1pubrp t.html [fas.org]).
By 1860, the bitter atmosphere arising from the discord between the northern and southern states had greatly increased the danger of political violence. As soon as Abraham Lincoln was chosen to be the Republican candidate for President that year, he began to receive numerous death threats. During the campaign, he was constantly surrounded by a phalanx of bodyguards. In at least one instance, one of these bodyguards was Alan Pinkerton, the founder of the celebrated detective agency.
Lincoln's security detail grew after he assumed the Presidency. He chafed under this protection and worried that it made him appear unmanly, but he ultimately conceded its necessity. Numerous Metropolitan Police were detailed to the Executive Mansion to serve as guards. Because Lincoln did not want the Executive Mansion to take on the characteristics of an armed camp, the guards inside the Mansion (the doormen) dressed in civilian clothes and concealed their firearms. Uniformed, armed sentries were posted at the gates to the grounds and at the doors to the Executive Mansion itself.
During the Civil War, the military helped protect the Mansion. When the conflict started, soldiers actually camped inside the Executive Mansion until Washington was adequately fortified. Even after the city was deemed secure, military units were often assigned to serve as guards there.
Troops also frequently accompanied Lincoln during his travels. Indeed, throughout the Civil War, no member of Lincoln's family left the White House grounds unescorted. Thus, they were the first White House occupants to receive extensive personal protection. An armed, plainclothes member of the Metropolitan Police regularly accompanied Mrs. Lincoln on her outings. Moreover, the White House doormen never lost sight of the Lincolns' son Tad, who was considered a target for kidnappers. By 1864, four Metropolitan Policemen were assigned to serve as President Lincoln's personal bodyguards. One of these men, responsible for protecting Lincoln at Ford Theater on the evening of April 14, 1865, was having a drink at a nearby saloon when John Wilkes Booth fatally wounded the President with a shot to the head.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Re:so, what this article is saying is...
(Score:2)
by turbidostato (878842) Alter Relationship on Friday May 18, @06:26PM (#19185685)
"It's kind of astonishing to think that security around the President was so much less then"
[...]
"I wonder if they were just naive about security, or if perhaps it was a more genteel time in general."
"Then?" What do you mean by "then"? I thought Ronald Reagan was president *after* Lincoln, and I thought he was shouted almost within hand-range back then, hummm... about 1987.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Re:so, what this article is saying is...
(Score:2)
by encoderer (1060616) Alter Relationship on Friday May 18, @06:36PM (#19185817)
Actually, it was 1981, not 1987, but that's beside the point.
If you want my opinion, this is the best argument yet against the nuts that say that the way to stop gun crime is to arm the civilians.
Ronald Reagan was surrounded by a dozen of the most highly trained armed bodyguards in the history of the world. Still, a man proved that if you're willing to risk your own life to take somebody else's, there's very little that can be done to effectively stop you. It makes the notion that less gun crime would occur because civilians could defend themselves sound just a little silly.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Re:so, what this article is saying is...
(Score:2)
by Schemat1c (464768) Alter Relationship on Friday May 18, @09:41PM (#19187283)
(http://slashdot.org/)
If you want my opinion, this is the best argument yet against the nuts that say that the way to stop gun crime is to arm the civilians.
Nice try at starting a gun control argument you silly little troll.
--
"Nobody knows the age of the human race, but everybody agrees that it is old enough to know better." - Anonymous
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Re:so, what this article is saying is...
(Score:1)
by heinousjay (683506) Alter Relationship on Saturday May 19, @05:03AM (#19189287)
(Last Journal: Friday June 23, @09:54PM)
Hey, look, the guy didn't kill Reagan. What do you know, he actually did fail. Don't let the facts get in the way of a clever argument, though.
--
Blah.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Re:so, what this article is saying is...
(Score:2)
by hey! (33014) Alter Relationship on Friday May 18, @06:44PM (#19185905)
(http://kamthaka.blogspot.com/ | Last Journal: Wednesday March 30, @04:18PM)
Except during war, the President was much less powerful back then. For much of the nineteenth century, you could walk up to the White House, ring the bell, and hand your card over to the person who answered, and you'd have a good shot at meeting the President.
There was even a slight chance that the person who answered the bell might be the President.
Of course, Teddy Roosevelt changed the nature of the Presidency; made it much more assertive. Another change is technology which has an unlimited capacity to create irony. Once the telephone was invented, it became certain that an ordinary person could not get a meeting with the President. Every moment of the President's day could be filled with communication, making the President much more connected to a vast ocean of people, in which you are just one tiny fish.
It is true that they would have been much more security conscious during wartime. But in general it would have been very easy to assassinate the President before the twentieth century. In an era when the President was much more accessible, and which did not have metal detectors, if you cooked up a good enough story you probably could have done it right in the Oval Office. The only reason it wasn't done more often was that there were (a) the ratio of people to Presidents was smaller and (b) the President didn't matter as much.
--
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Re:so, what this article is saying is...
(Score:2)
by ignavus (213578) Alter Relationship on Saturday May 19, @01:11AM (#19188379)
Yeah, nobody had assassinated a President before, but sovereign rulers had been the target of people with grievances before.
In fact, on Jan 30, 1835 a would-be assassin fired two pistols at President Andrew Jackson from close range. Jackson then actually beat the assailant with his walking stick, he was that close to the action. Fortunately, the pistols had misfired, else Jackson would have been the first US President to be be assassinated, not Lincoln.
So Lincoln was not the first serious attempt at assassination, just the first successful assassination.
--
Mien Bedreevssystem is beter as dien Bedreevssystem! (seen on Plattdot)
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Re:so, what this article is saying is...
(Score:5, Informative)
by lord_mike (567148) Alter Relationship on Friday May 18, @04:16PM (#19184007)
Lincoln was shot at several times... One time, he was walking around in a park and his hat suddenly flew off... When he picked it up, there was a bullet hole in it.
His wife was very nervous for his safety, but he refused any bodyguards of any type. When he was inaugurated, he was sneaked into Washington, literally under a cloak. Some local papers got a hold of that story and mocked him for being cowardly. So, he instead was very open and brazen, much to the chagrin of his Mary Todd, who worried herself sick over his safety.
Her greatest fear became reality that night at the theater.
Thanks,
Mike
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Re:so, what this article is saying is...
(Score:2, Insightful)
by Short Circuit (52384) * Alter Relationship <mikemol@gmail.com> on Friday May 18, @04:45PM (#19184423)
(http://rosettacode.org/ | Last Journal: Friday April 13, @12:00AM)
If Lincoln were President today, he'd be very unpopular with the Slashdot crowd. Slavery issues aside, he believed and acted in a manner that strengthened the federal government. He even ordered confedracy sympathizers in Maryland arrested prior to election day so that Maryland, the seat of power for the Federal government, wouldn't secede.
In other words, he ran what might have been the most oppressive federal government since the Alien and Sedition acts of World War I, entirely contrary to the spirit of the American colonies' secession from the British Empire.
You're saying nobody today would have made a serious attempt on his life?
--
Rosetta Code -- Building a Programmer's Rosetta Stone [rosettacode.org]
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Re:so, what this article is saying is...
(Score:1)
by Short Circuit (52384) * Alter Relationship <mikemol@gmail.com> on Friday May 18, @04:47PM (#19184453)
(http://rosettacode.org/ | Last Journal: Friday April 13, @12:00AM)
Erp...timeline error: s/since/prior to and following/
--
Rosetta Code -- Building a Programmer's Rosetta Stone [rosettacode.org]
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Re:so, what this article is saying is...
(Score:2)
by shark72 (702619) Alter Relationship on Friday May 18, @04:49PM (#19184487)
"If Lincoln were President today, he'd be very unpopular with the Slashdot crowd. Slavery issues aside, he believed and acted in a manner that strengthened the federal government. He even ordered confedracy sympathizers in Maryland arrested prior to election day so that Maryland, the seat of power for the Federal government, wouldn't secede."
Plus, there's the personal grooming issue. I think the relevant phrase on Slashdot would be "goatee considered harmful."
--
Always "interesting," never "insightful."
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Re:so, what this article is saying is...
(Score:2)
by The One and Only (691315) Alter Relationship <phil@philwelch.net> on Friday May 18, @06:59PM (#19186073)
(http://philwelch.net/)
Are you kidding? Have you ever seen (or seen pictures of) Stallman, or Richie or Thompson? Most of us have bearded heroes.
--
Q. Are you being paid by the word? A. Indeed! Verily, I am!
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Re:so, what this article is saying is...
(Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 18, @07:19PM (#19186285)
Plus, there's the personal grooming issue. I think the relevant phrase on Slashdot would be "goatse considered harmful."
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Re:so, what this article is saying is...
(Score:2)
by eln (21727) Alter Relationship on Friday May 18, @04:55PM (#19184571)
You're saying nobody today would have made a serious attempt on his life?
What I meant by that is that security might have been so tight around him that no one would be able to get close enough to make a serious attempt at his life, not that there wouldn't be people who wanted to do so. George W. Bush is not very well liked these days, and there are probably plenty of people who want to kill him, but to date no serious attempt has been made. Maybe this is because nobody wants to see Cheney sitting in the Oval Office, but I'm sure the unprecedented security also has something to do with it.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Re:so, what this article is saying is...
(Score:1)
by Short Circuit (52384) * Alter Relationship <mikemol@gmail.com> on Friday May 18, @05:11PM (#19184763)
(http://rosettacode.org/ | Last Journal: Friday April 13, @12:00AM)
I don't know why on Earth I can't find a link to it now, but someone once flew a small prop plane into the Oval Office during Clinton's Presidency. I remember seeing it on the news a long while back.
--
Rosetta Code -- Building a Programmer's Rosetta Stone [rosettacode.org]
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Re:so, what this article is saying is...
(Score:2)
by autocracy (192714) Alter Relationship <slashdot2007@NoSpam.storyinmemo.com> on Friday May 18, @05:55PM (#19185373)
(http://storyinmemo.com/)
Yeah, it crashed on the front lawn of the Whitehouse, to the left side. I don't believe it actually impacted the building, but was rather very close to it.
--
SIG: HUP
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Re:so, what this article is saying is...
(Score:2)
by autocracy (192714) Alter Relationship <slashdot2007@NoSpam.storyinmemo.com> on Friday May 18, @05:57PM (#19185405)
(http://storyinmemo.com/)
Ah, here we go:
http://www-tech.mit.edu/V114/N40/crash.40w.html [mit.edu]
http://www.geocities.com/roboplanes/cessna.html [geocities.com]
http://www.fas.org/irp/agency/ustreas/usss/t1pubrp t.html [fas.org]
--
SIG: HUP
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Re:so, what this article is saying is...
(Score:1)
by operagost (62405) Alter Relationship on Friday May 18, @05:31PM (#19185081)
(http://operagost.com/ | Last Journal: Monday May 01, @01:08PM)
You'd have to step around a bunch of sheep poop, too. They used to graze animals on the lawn.
--
Gamingmuseum.com [gamingmuseum.com]: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Re:so, what this article is saying is...
(Score:1)
by WrongMonkey (1027334) Alter Relationship on Friday May 18, @06:48PM (#19185951)
Lincoln had as much protections as was possible in that day. Someone being able to walk up to the White House would have been ridiculous even then.
John Wilkes Booth was able to get that close to Lincoln because he was a famous actor. Sure a regular joe wouldn't be able to get within 30 yards of a president today, but the same was true then. OTOH, if George Clooney decided to kill Bush he would have a good chance of getting past security.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Re:so, what this article is saying is...
(Score:2)
by fucksl4shd0t (630000) Alter Relationship on Friday May 18, @10:48PM (#19187667)
(http://www.davefancella.com/ | Last Journal: Wednesday December 31, @03:21AM)
No, I think this article is more like "Think of the really awesome people in history who died prematurely. We can save people like that, now!"
I'm sure Kirk will be pleased.
--
Like what I said? You might like my musi [davefancella.com]
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
1 reply beneath your current threshold.
#
Re:so, what this article is saying is...
(Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 18, @04:01PM (#19183753)
I think the question of "potency" in this case needs to be evaluated from various angles. Are the firearms today producing better single shots or just the ability to fire more rounds? Perhaps both but in a lot of ways the point is kind of moot since Booth chose a weapon that, even in it's time, was fairly inappropriate. It makes you wonder why Booth decided on his firearm. Was it a matter or access? Probably not since firearms were less regulated at the time. We know the attack was planned so it's not a matter of having time to arm himself. And considering the bulkiness of the firearm I find it hard to believe it was a question of it being concealable.
Maybe FWB was just that incompetent. Maybe a single shot from a modern firearm in the hands of FWB would have done just the same thing and he was a poor marksman or unknowledgable in forensics/ballistics. I know, at point blank poor marksmanship seems inconceivable but there is a lot of it that goes around.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Re:so, what this article is saying is...
(Score:2)
by oldmacdonald (80995) Alter Relationship <`moc.mbi.nostaw' `ta' `niloms'> on Friday May 18, @04:07PM (#19183873)
So, if FWB was more competent, he would have killed Lincoln more?
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Re:so, what this article is saying is...
(Score:2)
by Johnny5000 (451029) Alter Relationship on Friday May 18, @04:25PM (#19184145)
(http://slashdot.org/)
So, if FWB was more competent, he would have killed Lincoln more?
That depends.. Who is FWB supposed to be?
FJohn Wilkes Booth?
--
Food is free for the taking for every other animal on earth, except humans (in our culture.)
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Re:so, what this article is saying is...
(Score:2)
by oldmacdonald (80995) Alter Relationship <`moc.mbi.nostaw' `ta' `niloms'> on Friday May 18, @04:33PM (#19184263)
D'oh. Maybe if the AC I replied to had just used the preview button....
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Re:so, what this article is saying is...
(Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 18, @05:29PM (#19185055)
it's fantastic to blame the ac for your mistakes. how does it feel to be a lemming?
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Re:so, what this article is saying is...
(Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 19, @03:09AM (#19188821)
Who is FWB supposed to be? FJohn Wilkes Booth?
Perchance that beeth the olde spellinge
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Re:so, what this article is saying is...
(Score:5, Funny)
by gad_zuki! (70830) Alter Relationship on Friday May 18, @04:08PM (#19183885)
(http://everythingisnt.com/ | Last Journal: Sunday October 27, @12:59AM)
If this happened today Lincoln would have been prescribed prozac at 15, lightened up, and become a full-time circus clown. Mary Todd, would just be called Todd after the gender-reassignment and Booth would have made it in Hollywood and become another eccentric scientologist and could take his aggression out of people who leave the church. Happy Endings for all!
--
"It only takes 20 years for a liberal to become a conservative without changing a single idea." -Robert Anton Wilson
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Re:so, what this article is saying is...
(Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 18, @04:08PM (#19183891)
Bah! Prove it. Take a president (use your imagination!) and do a test shot with a muzzle loading pistol and see if they can patch him up. It would all be in the name of science of course.
Don't let Cheney do it though, he'll shoot him in the face.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Re:so, what this article is saying is...
(Score:1)
by teflonscout (302958) Alter Relationship on Friday May 18, @04:12PM (#19183939)
But could we save Kennedy? Just kidding, on a more technical note, there are tons of cool new toys for medics and trauma doctors. I have been amazed by how slowly emergency rooms are adopting chitosan bandages [wired.com] like HemCon despite their proven effectiveness in Iraq. Pretty soon we may be able to use hydrogen sulfide to put people into suspended animation for very long surgeries.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Re:so, what this article is saying is...
(Score:2)
by ookabooka (731013) Alter Relationship on Friday May 18, @04:26PM (#19184163)
And, as pointed out in the article, the weapon used then was relatively impotent. Would it not be safe to consider that if the assassination were committed today the assassin likely would have also used updated technology (i.e., something more, ahem, potent)?
Ok, I think you're missing the point. Ever think about Apollo 13 and wish you could go back in time with your PDA give it to NASA because it could have replaced the on board computer (using an emulator running under Java while you were playing chess against it) and had its own independent power supply (2x AA's) that would last the whole trip? Or what about giving just Napoleon a single tank that can easily run on kerosene which was readily available back then. Yes technology has come far and people always think about how things used to be and how far we've come. This is just another example of us humans not taking something for granted and realizing how far our technological advances have carried us.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Re:so, what this article is saying is...
(Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 18, @06:38PM (#19185841)
The last thing I would want is to have my spaceship run by a PDA's computer. They'll lock up if you fart too loudly or think impure thoughts.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Re:so, what this article is saying is...
(Score:2)
by Bonker (243350) Alter Relationship on Friday May 18, @04:29PM (#19184217)
(http://www.furinkan.net/ | Last Journal: Tuesday October 15, @12:35PM)
The ultimate point of these conferences is not to propose sci-fi 'what if' scenarios. Nor is it an indictment of archaic medical procedure. Instead, they're more to improve the current body of medical knowledge by applying modern science to archaic, but well-documented cases.
Leale, Lincoln's surgeon, made a number of choices on how to treat his patient given the best science of the time. These included heating Lincoln's body with hot water bottles to try to prevent shock and removing the from his brain with a probe.
Even with EXACTLY the same instruments available to Leale (say to a squad of paramedics or a field team of secret service medics), it's advisable to make a slightly different set of choices on how to treat the injury with today's knowledge.
In particular, more attention would be paid to keeping the patient's blood pressure up via fluid infusion or blood transfusion. The bullet would also be left in place to avoid aggravating the injuries it caused.
Assassination attempts happen, even for the stupidest of reasonsjodie foster. This particular exercise helps modern medical professionals understand the situation better than they might have when facing a similar scenario.
--
The next Slashdot story will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush and slashdot the links early!
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Re:so, what this article is saying is...
(Score:2)
by linguizic (806996) Alter Relationship on Friday May 18, @05:01PM (#19184677)
(http://improbableuniverse.blogspot.com/)
I'm waiting for an article to come out saying that the report showing that Lincoln was shot by one gun is false.
--
Brought to you by Carl's Junior.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Re:so, what this article is saying is...
(Score:2)
by treeves (963993) Alter Relationship on Friday May 18, @05:36PM (#19185143)
(http://slashdot.org/~treeves/ | Last Journal: Friday August 25, @03:51PM)
Well...Kennedy had a Press Secretary named Lincoln, and Lincoln had a secretary named Kennedy, and...
--
Never express yourself more clearly than you think. -- Niels Bohr
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Re:so, what this article is saying is...
(Score:1)
by bocin (886008) Alter Relationship on Friday May 18, @09:09PM (#19187055)
Handguns are more powerful today. Perhaps Booth would have had more than one shot.... Off goes old Abes head....Fix that!
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Re:so, what this article is saying is...
(Score:2)
by russotto (537200) Alter Relationship on Friday May 18, @09:41PM (#19187279)
I don't know that a modern small pistol firing .25ACP would be any less potent than the weapon Booth used, a .44 derringer.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Re:so, what this article is saying is...
(Score:1)
by BrGaribaldi (710238) Alter Relationship on Saturday May 19, @02:29PM (#19192101)
(http://www.thisisdark.com/)
Why is this news? In another 150 years the technology level will most likely be such that most deaths, back in Lincoln's time and in ours, can and will be prevented. Do you think they'll still be dealing with cancer and AIDS 150 years from now? Heart disease, clogged arteries...all these things will be cured. Wired has even run articles saying old age will be cured before too long. And as far as trauma goes, just think about Star Trek IV. Bones called modern medicine the "Dark Ages". I certainly hope that is exactly what they are saying about us 150 years from now. Shouldn't this kind of thing just be expected?
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Yes, but...
(Score:1)
by SkunkWorx (662057) Alter Relationship <skunkworxNO@SPAMkingwoodcable.com> on Friday May 18, @03:44PM (#19183465)
(http://www.skunkworx.org/)
...what kind of gun would he have been shot with had today's technology been around? Certainly not one that was "relatively impotent compared to the firepower now on the streets today."
[ Reply to This ]
And not to mention
(Score:4, Funny)
by User 956 (568564) Alter Relationship on Friday May 18, @03:57PM (#19183699)
(http://www.atomjax.com/)
...what kind of gun would he have been shot with had today's technology been around?
and don't forget, they didn't even have the catcher in the rye back then.
--
AtomJax: Sciencey Stuff for Sciencey People [atomjax.com].
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Interesting Thought
(Score:2)
by MyLongNickName (822545) Alter Relationship on Friday May 18, @03:44PM (#19183467)
(Last Journal: Saturday October 14, @09:12AM)
Yeah... but what if he'd been shot with a modern gun?
[ Reply to This ]
Re:Interesting Thought
(Score:2)
by The_Rook (136658) Alter Relationship on Friday May 18, @03:52PM (#19183617)
best comparison might be to when ronald reagan was shot.
--
when religion is no longer the opiate of the masses, governments will resort to real opiates.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Re:Interesting Thought
(Score:1)
by Wog (58146) Alter Relationship on Saturday May 19, @01:21AM (#19188431)
(Last Journal: Friday March 16, @07:07PM)
Reagan was shot with a Röhm RG-14, a .22 revolver.
I own one just like it. It belonged to my grandfather. It is an absolutely worthless piece of junk, and I never shoot it when I go to the range. When the cylinder doesn't completely lock up, the fall of the hammer often fails to ignite the round. When the gun does actually fire, the barrel is of such poor quality that the bullet often tumbles within 10 yards, leaving a boat-shaped hole in the paper target a heck of a long way away from the point of aim. The only reason I keep the trash gun is because of the family history behind it.
Hinckley also used the powerful-sounding but poorly designed "Devastator" bullets, which were marketed as bullets that "explode" on impact. Rubbish. I've read reports about these bullets fired into ballistics gel as well as wet phone books, and have never seen any result other than the bullets tumbling and breaking up into small, low-velocity pieces, often before hitting the target. None of the rounds fired by Hinckley actually exploded, though it appears that they managed to stay in one piece well enough to very seriously wound Brady. Reagan's wound was from a bullet fragment that bounced off the glass of his limousine and impacted him in the chest.
So no, not a good example of modern weaponry. Maybe an example of extremely poor choice in weaponry (thankfully!) or perhaps an extremely tight budget. Maybe Hinckley was saving his pennies for the honeymoon with Jodie...
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
.25 auto would have bounced off his skull.
(Score:1, Offtopic)
by HornWumpus (783565) Alter Relationship on Friday May 18, @03:53PM (#19183641)
Not all modern weapons are any good. Some are damn near useless.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Re:.25 auto would have bounced off his skull.
(Score:2)
by JesseL (107722) Alter Relationship <jesselambert@NospAM.gmail.com> on Friday May 18, @04:08PM (#19183883)
(http://slashdot.org/ | Last Journal: Saturday April 21, @02:07PM)
You do know that the 25ACP is nearly 100 years old now, right? (Of course the same goes for 45ACP and 9mm Luger)
--
"All you really own is whatever you can carry in two hands at a dead run." -RAH
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Re:.25 auto would have bounced off his skull.
(Score:2)
by bhsurfer (539137) Alter Relationship <bhsurfer.gmail@com> on Friday May 18, @04:17PM (#19184033)
Another appx 100-year-older is the not-so-ineffective 30-06. One of those puppies will put a definite plot twist into any play.
--
Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, I have others.
Groucho Marx
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
They have changed a lot in 100+ years
(Score:2)
by IdahoEv (195056) Alter Relationship on Friday May 18, @06:12PM (#19185525)
(http://www.idahoev.com/)
.45ACP and 9mm luger are both around a century old, but only in the sense of the specified dimensions. (9x19 luger is 106 years old, in fact.)
Modern rounds can be packed to much higher pressures (a modern 9mm +P+ round packs a much bigger wallop than a 1898 9mm luger round) of faster-burning propellant.
Not to mention expanding bullets. Hollow- and soft-point bullets were invented about 30 years after the Lincoln assassination, and have been improved since then. Polymer-filled expanders are much more recent. Expanding bullets make a dramatic difference in wounding potential.
--
I stole this sig from someone cleverer than me.
IdahoEv's Rant [idahoev.com]
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Re:They have changed a lot in 100+ years
(Score:2)
by JesseL (107722) Alter Relationship <jesselambert@NospAM.gmail.com> on Friday May 18, @07:09PM (#19186169)
(http://slashdot.org/ | Last Journal: Saturday April 21, @02:07PM)
Agreed. I just wanted to point out that calling the .25ACP "modern" is a bit of a stretch unless you adopt an unusual definition of modern.
There aren't a whole lot of cartridge designs (as opposed to loadings) I would consider modern. I have firearms in 19 different chamberings and the only one I can think of that is less than 40 years old is the .40S&W.
--
"All you really own is whatever you can carry in two hands at a dead run." -RAH
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Re:They have changed a lot in 100+ years
(Score:2)
by russotto (537200) Alter Relationship on Friday May 18, @10:04PM (#19187397)
"Modern" in terms of firearm ammo pretty much just means it's cartridge ammo with some form of smokeless powder as propellant. Another possible meaning would be "in common use today", but that still includes the lowly .25 ACP. Booth used a rather low-powered weapon for his day, for the same reason he'd use one today -- size and weight. I haven't seen anything which said the bullet actually penetrated his skull (though it did crack his eye socket); he was shot in the back of the head, so it may have gone in under the skull.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Re:They have changed a lot in 100+ years
(Score:2)
by JesseL (107722) Alter Relationship <jesselambert@NospAM.gmail.com> on Saturday May 19, @12:30AM (#19188201)
(http://slashdot.org/ | Last Journal: Saturday April 21, @02:07PM)
Hmmm, I've gotta disagree with both of your definition for "modern ammunition". I can think of several cartridges in common use, loaded with smokeless powder, that very few people would call modern. Do you consider .30 WCF(.30-30), .45-70 Govt, .303 British, 7.62x54R Russian, or .44-40 WCF to be modern? Most of them have been updated to some degree with newer propellants or projectiles and they work at least as well as they ever did but to call them modern is to disregard the advances that have been made in cartridge technology in more recent years.
Your definitions seem kind of like claiming that the Chevrolet small-block OHV V8 is a modern engine, or the Intel x86 is a modern microprocessor architecture.
--
"All you really own is whatever you can carry in two hands at a dead run." -RAH
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Re:.25 auto would have bounced off his skull.
(Score:2)
by hal2814 (725639) Alter Relationship on Friday May 18, @04:25PM (#19184153)
And if he had tried to use one of today's plastic spatulas, it would've been no match for yesteryear's metal variety. I do assume an assassin would use some a bit more appropriate for assassination though.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Interesting Thought
(Score:2)
by MyLongNickName (822545) Alter Relationship on Friday May 18, @03:44PM (#19183467)
(Last Journal: Saturday October 14, @09:12AM)
Yeah... but what if he'd been shot with a modern gun?
[ Reply to This ]
Re:Interesting Thought
(Score:2)
by The_Rook (136658) Alter Relationship on Friday May 18, @03:52PM (#19183617)
best comparison might be to when ronald reagan was shot.
--
when religion is no longer the opiate of the masses, governments will resort to real opiates.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Re:Interesting Thought
(Score:1)
by Wog (58146) Alter Relationship on Saturday May 19, @01:21AM (#19188431)
(Last Journal: Friday March 16, @07:07PM)
Reagan was shot with a Röhm RG-14, a .22 revolver.
I own one just like it. It belonged to my grandfather. It is an absolutely worthless piece of junk, and I never shoot it when I go to the range. When the cylinder doesn't completely lock up, the fall of the hammer often fails to ignite the round. When the gun does actually fire, the barrel is of such poor quality that the bullet often tumbles within 10 yards, leaving a boat-shaped hole in the paper target a heck of a long way away from the point of aim. The only reason I keep the trash gun is because of the family history behind it.
Hinckley also used the powerful-sounding but poorly designed "Devastator" bullets, which were marketed as bullets that "explode" on impact. Rubbish. I've read reports about these bullets fired into ballistics gel as well as wet phone books, and have never seen any result other than the bullets tumbling and breaking up into small, low-velocity pieces, often before hitting the target. None of the rounds fired by Hinckley actually exploded, though it appears that they managed to stay in one piece well enough to very seriously wound Brady. Reagan's wound was from a bullet fragment that bounced off the glass of his limousine and impacted him in the chest.
So no, not a good example of modern weaponry. Maybe an example of extremely poor choice in weaponry (thankfully!) or perhaps an extremely tight budget. Maybe Hinckley was saving his pennies for the honeymoon with Jodie...
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
.25 auto would have bounced off his skull.
(Score:1, Offtopic)
by HornWumpus (783565) Alter Relationship on Friday May 18, @03:53PM (#19183641)
Not all modern weapons are any good. Some are damn near useless.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Re:.25 auto would have bounced off his skull.
(Score:2)
by JesseL (107722) Alter Relationship <jesselambert@NospAM.gmail.com> on Friday May 18, @04:08PM (#19183883)
(http://slashdot.org/ | Last Journal: Saturday April 21, @02:07PM)
You do know that the 25ACP is nearly 100 years old now, right? (Of course the same goes for 45ACP and 9mm Luger)
--
"All you really own is whatever you can carry in two hands at a dead run." -RAH
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Re:.25 auto would have bounced off his skull.
(Score:2)
by bhsurfer (539137) Alter Relationship <bhsurfer.gmail@com> on Friday May 18, @04:17PM (#19184033)
Another appx 100-year-older is the not-so-ineffective 30-06. One of those puppies will put a definite plot twist into any play.
--
Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, I have others.
Groucho Marx
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
They have changed a lot in 100+ years
(Score:2)
by IdahoEv (195056) Alter Relationship on Friday May 18, @06:12PM (#19185525)
(http://www.idahoev.com/)
.45ACP and 9mm luger are both around a century old, but only in the sense of the specified dimensions. (9x19 luger is 106 years old, in fact.)
Modern rounds can be packed to much higher pressures (a modern 9mm +P+ round packs a much bigger wallop than a 1898 9mm luger round) of faster-burning propellant.
Not to mention expanding bullets. Hollow- and soft-point bullets were invented about 30 years after the Lincoln assassination, and have been improved since then. Polymer-filled expanders are much more recent. Expanding bullets make a dramatic difference in wounding potential.
--
I stole this sig from someone cleverer than me.
IdahoEv's Rant [idahoev.com]
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Re:They have changed a lot in 100+ years
(Score:2)
by JesseL (107722) Alter Relationship <jesselambert@NospAM.gmail.com> on Friday May 18, @07:09PM (#19186169)
(http://slashdot.org/ | Last Journal: Saturday April 21, @02:07PM)
Agreed. I just wanted to point out that calling the .25ACP "modern" is a bit of a stretch unless you adopt an unusual definition of modern.
There aren't a whole lot of cartridge designs (as opposed to loadings) I would consider modern. I have firearms in 19 different chamberings and the only one I can think of that is less than 40 years old is the .40S&W.
--
"All you really own is whatever you can carry in two hands at a dead run." -RAH
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Re:They have changed a lot in 100+ years
(Score:2)
by russotto (537200) Alter Relationship on Friday May 18, @10:04PM (#19187397)
"Modern" in terms of firearm ammo pretty much just means it's cartridge ammo with some form of smokeless powder as propellant. Another possible meaning would be "in common use today", but that still includes the lowly .25 ACP. Booth used a rather low-powered weapon for his day, for the same reason he'd use one today -- size and weight. I haven't seen anything which said the bullet actually penetrated his skull (though it did crack his eye socket); he was shot in the back of the head, so it may have gone in under the skull.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Re:They have changed a lot in 100+ years
(Score:2)
by JesseL (107722) Alter Relationship <jesselambert@NospAM.gmail.com> on Saturday May 19, @12:30AM (#19188201)
(http://slashdot.org/ | Last Journal: Saturday April 21, @02:07PM)
Hmmm, I've gotta disagree with both of your definition for "modern ammunition". I can think of several cartridges in common use, loaded with smokeless powder, that very few people would call modern. Do you consider .30 WCF(.30-30), .45-70 Govt, .303 British, 7.62x54R Russian, or .44-40 WCF to be modern? Most of them have been updated to some degree with newer propellants or projectiles and they work at least as well as they ever did but to call them modern is to disregard the advances that have been made in cartridge technology in more recent years.
Your definitions seem kind of like claiming that the Chevrolet small-block OHV V8 is a modern engine, or the Intel x86 is a modern microprocessor architecture.
--
"All you really own is whatever you can carry in two hands at a dead run." -RAH
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Re:.25 auto would have bounced off his skull.
(Score:2)
by hal2814 (725639) Alter Relationship on Friday May 18, @04:25PM (#19184153)
And if he had tried to use one of today's plastic spatulas, it would've been no match for yesteryear's metal variety. I do assume an assassin would use some a bit more appropriate for assassination though.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
What's the fuss
(Score:2)
by tsa (15680) Alter Relationship on Friday May 18, @03:45PM (#19183477)
(http://www.willemtjerkstra.nl/)
Yes, if the medical technologies and treatments we have today were developed earlier they could have saved people who are now dead. Isn't that obvious??!
--
-- There. I said it.
[ Reply to This ]
Re:What's the fuss
(Score:5, Funny)
by Applekid (993327) Alter Relationship on Friday May 18, @03:51PM (#19183593)
I'd be more impressed if modern science managed to bring Lincoln back from the dead. ;)
--
Code so secure it can imbibe fruity drinks with paper umbrellas and not let snickers of other modules get to him.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Re:What's the fuss
(Score:1)
by uberjoe (726765) Alter Relationship on Friday May 18, @04:18PM (#19184037)
Dear Applekid,
Just wait. We are working on it.
Sincerely,
The Raëlians [wikipedia.org]
--
The days of the digital watch are numbered.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Re:What's the fuss
(Score:2)
by acidrain69 (632468) Alter Relationship on Friday May 18, @03:59PM (#19183739)
(Last Journal: Tuesday May 16, @11:41PM)
Obvious, yes. I think the real story here is that this is what medical geeks do in their spare time; apply their trade to historic events in a what-if scenario.
--
-- get your stickers out of my science book. I don't paste crap in your bible [ed: we won]
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
similar studies?
(Score:5, Interesting)
by emc (19333) Alter Relationship on Friday May 18, @03:46PM (#19183487)
do they have similar presentations at conferences, like how the civil war would have ended if the south had stealth bombers... and how Hannibal would have done if he had a fleet of Hummers with 50cal BMGs?
[ Reply to This ]
Re:similar studies?
(Score:3, Funny)
by greenguy (162630) Alter Relationship <steveh AT greens DOT org> on Friday May 18, @04:06PM (#19183853)
(http://justthings.info/ | Last Journal: Saturday December 09, @06:17AM)
What if Frodo had had a spaceship with an Improbability Drive?
--
We had to go and live in a lake!
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Re:similar studies?
(Score:4, Interesting)
by aktzin (882293) Alter Relationship on Friday May 18, @04:21PM (#19184073)
Your comment reminded me of this funny "what if...?" look at Lord of the Rings:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JnUvw1rzziE [youtube.com]
--
Quantum mechanics: the dreams that stuff is made of.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Re:similar studies?
(Score:2)
by bryan1945 (301828) Alter Relationship on Friday May 18, @07:30PM (#19186397)
(Last Journal: Friday February 18, @11:45PM)
Excellent! But were the heck did Gollum come from?
--
I want to own a monkey. Or a Congressman. Not much difference.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Re:similar studies?
(Score:2)
by e2d2 (115622) Alter Relationship on Friday May 18, @05:24PM (#19184985)
You laugh, but one day we will be able to travel through time, even back to the time of Frodo.
--
Nothing. I want nothing - Hunter S. Thompson
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
similar patents?
(Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 18, @04:07PM (#19183859)
Considering Lincoln had a patent (the only one to have one). History would have been different.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Re:similar patents?
(Score:1)
by notamisfit (995619) Alter Relationship on Friday May 18, @10:26PM (#19187535)
Wonder if he'd be suing Richard Stallman for beard infringement...
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Re:similar studies?
(Score:2)
by Hoi Polloi (522990) Alter Relationship on Friday May 18, @04:11PM (#19183933)
I remember an early SNL episode that had Kirk Douglas in a skit called "What if Spartacus Had a Piper Cub?"
--
It is by the juice of the coffee bean that thoughts acquire speed, the teeth acquire stains. The stains become a warning
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Re:similar studies?
(Score:2)
by Jonathan_S (25407) Alter Relationship on Friday May 18, @04:44PM (#19184413)
do they have similar presentations at conferences, like how the civil war would have ended if the south had stealth bombers... and how Hannibal would have done if he had a fleet of Hummers with 50cal BMGs?
Well, first thing the Hummers would run out of fuel...
OTOH he did get Eliphants across the alps, I guess he could get Hummers into Italy. (Tow them behind the eliphant if nothing else). Not sure why you'd bother. The 50cal BMG would certainly kill plenty of Romans, while the ammo lasted.
But Hannibal's problem was never killing Roman soldiers. It was that he didn't have the people or logistics to beseige Rome (and force a surrender), nor the force to storm the city.
Giving him a couple of trucks of MREs would probably change history more than machine guns.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Re:similar studies?
(Score:2)
by Lars T. (470328) Alter Relationship <Lars,Traeger&googlemail,com> on Friday May 18, @04:45PM (#19184417)
(Last Journal: Tuesday May 15, @05:19PM)
do they have similar presentations at conferences, like how the civil war would have ended if the south had stealth bombers... and how Hannibal would have done if he had a fleet of Hummers with 50cal BMGs?
Then he would have never passed the alps, for Hummers suck in the mountains.
--
Lars T.
Those who tout the greatness of their nation seldom contribute to it.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Re:similar studies?
(Score:2)
by Nimey (114278) Alter Relationship on Friday May 18, @04:54PM (#19184549)
(http://slashdot.org/ | Last Journal: Tuesday August 29, @07:44PM)
Harry Turtledove wrote a book (Guns of the South) that had Afrikaners go back in time and give the Confederacy AK-47s.
No, I refuse to read it.
--
Hail Eris, full of mischief...
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Re:similar studies?
(Score:2)
by bill_mcgonigle (4333) * Alter Relationship on Friday May 18, @06:02PM (#19185435)
(http://blog.bfccomputing.com/ | Last Journal: Tuesday February 06, @05:50PM)
Harry Turtledove wrote a book (Guns of the South) that had Afrikaners go back in time and give the Confederacy AK-47s.
They had a White Power Time Machine and the best they could come up with was to hand out some guns?
No, I refuse to read it.
Prudent call.
--
My God, it's Full of Source!
Pick One: Global Warming, Agrarian Society, Nuclear Energy. - http://strongforce.org
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Re:similar studies?
(Score:2)
by R3d M3rcury (871886) Alter Relationship on Friday May 18, @08:31PM (#19186819)
(Last Journal: Friday May 04, @09:30PM)
And what if Lincoln had been armed and able to fire back [xs4all.nl]?
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Re:similar studies?
(Score:1)
by zitch (1019110) Alter Relationship <slashdot@forum.nickistre@net> on Saturday May 19, @12:22AM (#19188163)
(http://www.nickistre.net/)
Lincoln shot first! [starslipcrisis.com]
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Re:similar studies?
(Score:2)
by ChrisMaple (607946) Alter Relationship on Friday May 18, @11:04PM (#19187747)
30 or 40 years ago in Analog there was a story with a title like "Hawk among the Doves" about a modern jet fighter transported in time back to WWI. The fighter's heat and radar guided missiles were useless against wooden airplanes, and it was hard to get enough pure kerosene to fuel it. They finally used the sonic boom to break up the wooden aircraft.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]