Museum to exhibit severed arm

[Hank Trent]

Re: Museum to exhibit severed arm

Museums are in transition, from the old "dime museum" or "cabinet of curiosities" that would be familiar to 19th century patrons, to, well, wherever we're going today and in the future. A severed arm from Antietam would be right in the mainstream of the dime museum tradition, along with the mummies and babies in jars and two-headed calves.

Nowadays, not so much.

The Ohio Historical Society museum used to have a mummy and a two-headed calf on display, but I was surprised to see, after they reorganized and reinterpreted their exhibits a few years ago, that those two items had now been grouped together under a new theme: Dime Museums.

Yes, folks, step right up and see how tacky those old-time museums used to be, unlike today's tasteful, educational collections. Lol whut? A dime museum display within a museum is still on display in that museum. The mummy is still being exploited in all her dime museum splendor, perhaps worse, because now she's merely a prop in a display about dime museums, rather than a display about her life. As I recall, her sarcophagus is closed, but I'm assuming she's still in there, and not separately in a back room storage vault--not sure which is worse or better.

That's apparently a trend: The Brookville Ohio Historical Society has done the same, created a mock-up of the original context of their taxidermied deformed calves, to display them as an exhibit about how they used to be displayed in a local dime museum.

As the article linked in the original post notes, the arm used to be on display, even closer to the time when its owner's close descendants would have been living: "Alexander grew up nearby and remembers seeing the arm on display. 'It was quite an attraction,' he said. 'It was macabre and something to see as kid.'"

So if they put the arm on display as an artifact of the battle, I guess it could be worse. They could follow the trend and put it on display as an example of the grotesque things people used to pay a dime to gawk at--but of course we don't do that kind of thing any more. :confused_

Hank Trent
hanktrent@gmail.com

[bAcK88]

Re: Museum to exhibit severed arm

Before people decry about the thought of this arm being displayed, take a trip up the National Civil War Medical Museum in Frederick, MD. The staff there have done a wonderful job interpreting Civil War medical practices, how they changed, and why it's important for us to remember it today. I would be extremely surprised if the museum would use the arm just as a way to get visitors in the door. Rather the arm will be used as a teaching tool and show the human toll that this war caused.

By displaying the arm the real human cost of the war can be shown. The war was 150 years ago, making sure that not only that all living participants have since gone, but most of their direct descendents have gone as well. If we don't remind modern Americans about the human cost of the Civil War, we run the risk of having the conflict fade into an abstract history lesson that can easily be forgotten.

[CompanyWag]

Re: Museum to exhibit severed arm

Just curious as how this arm is different than Sickles' leg bones being on display (I think they are still on display)? ...

Probably because Sickles approved of it as you have implied.

I remember back in the 1960's visiting the Medical Museum in Washington and seeing Sickle's leg, the stomach from some Pennsylvania infantry captain, a section of J.W. Booth's neck bone (if I recall correctly), as well as numerous cadavers sliced and diced in many creative ways...most of which is no longer on display.

Back in the early 1990's, the Mudsills did a living history at Cumberland Gap which included a march which ended up at Harrogate TN where we visited the museum at Lincoln University. At the time, there was a Civil War medical exhibit which featured a large number of the highly graphic CDVs which were taken by the medical service to document the treatment of various horrific wounds treated in the general hospitals. You could have heard a pin drop as reenactors took in the sobering images of bodies torn by shells, smashed limbs, open seeping wounds and horribly disfigured faces. The comment was heard several times that all reenactors should see this exhibit to better understand the meaning of what we portray...and how absurd reenactor portrayals are of being wounded or killed in the light of the reality of what warfare really means.

To me, that is the greatest value of such an exhibit. Shock value? Yes, but not as entertainment...as an educational tool with a purpose.

[Cumpston1862]

Re: Museum to exhibit severed arm

Everyone has made good points.

IMHO the universal underlying concern we all have is respect. We are on this website and we participate in the events we do because of the respect we have for the people North and South that went through the Civil War. We also try and give a true representation of the 1860s time period because that is the best way of expressing that respect to our ancestors.

My thought on what should be done with the limb goes back and forth. I am certainly no expert on what is possible medically but from the article it seems to imply the limb was not amputated. It seems more likely the limb was torn from the soldier's body during the battle. I believe the limb should be studied and every possible test done to it. Maybe it could narrow down the soldier's identity. Down the road there might be other tests that could further clarify who the man was and where he came from.

After that I really don't know. I am torn on that part. I am certainly not on board with admission being charged to gawk at it. It needs to be treated and handled for what it is; the partial remains of a Civil War soldier that went to war for what he believed in and he was horribly crippled for life or maybe even died. That deserves everyone's respect.

[garyjd]

Re: Museum to exhibit severed arm

It is a great museum. They have well designed displays relating to all things medical. Besides showing written or photographic material is it that neccessary to show an amputated arm to understand the human toll? ~Gary

[garyjd]

Re: Museum to exhibit severed arm

"Back in the early 1990's, the Mudsills did a living history at Cumberland Gap which included a march which ended up at Harrogate TN where we visited the museum at Lincoln University. At the time, there was a Civil War medical exhibit which featured a large number of the highly graphic CDVs which were taken by the medical service to document the treatment of various horrific wounds treated in the general hospitals. You could have heard a pin drop as reenactors took in the sobering images of bodies torn by shells, smashed limbs, open seeping wounds and horribly disfigured faces. The comment was heard several times that all reenactors should see this exhibit to better understand the meaning of what we portray...and how absurd reenactor portrayals are of being wounded or killed in the light of the reality of what warfare really means".


I agree that the photographs make a very powerful statement. With a photograph you're looking at what was a living human being at the time the image was recorded with a horrific wound. IMO this is more shocking than an mummified amputated hand/forearm. ~Gary

[The Chesterfield Rifleman]

Re: Museum to exhibit severed arm

Now, this could be looked at in two different lights.

One, people may see this as tragic and bash the government for allowing this to be shown and not returned to the owner, even though the scientists studying this might not know either.

Or

People can look at this and get a somber, yet realistic and human, look at the war.