Hospital Flags

[catspjamas]

No ma'am, Nurses were not allowed onto battlefields. They were "assigned" to fixed hospitals.

They might not have been "allowed" but they did go on the battlefield. Sarah Edmonds wrote in her memoirs about helping wounded off the battlefield and having bullet holes in her dress. Also, Juliet Ann Opie Hopkins was wounded and left with a permanent limp at the battle of Sevens Pines. She received the injury while helping casualties off the field. Just two examples of nurses on the battlefield.

Cats

["Doc" Nelson]

Cats,
You are correct. I was merely quoting military regs of the period. In fact, women did allot more than is often known or, for a better term: acknowledged. How many women served in the ranks disguised as men? We will probably never know the answer to that? Thinking about what Noah had stated about Perryville, where the "town folk" had came out onto the battlefield to help with the overwhelming casualties. No, it wasn't normally allowed, but did happen quite allot. Thank you for that bit of information . Please, feel free to post on here anytime.

Oh, could you say hi to Jim Mills for me. Thanks .

Your Obedient Servant,

[MDRebCAv]

I remember running across something quite different and interesting on hospital flags.

I seem to recall something about the 1st Maryland Regiment (as per Hartzler's book--"A Band of Brothers", I think) using a hospital flag that was white with a horizontally oriented "hour-glass" of red and blue. I don't own the book but I remember seeing it in a copy that is owned by a friend.

[bizzilizzit]

[QUOTE=NoahBriggs]Most women near a battlefield had common sense - if armies are moving through, it's time to hoof it. Your property can be replaced, but you and your children cannot.

My questions were prompted by a period novel written by a lady - common sense had nothing to do with her motivations - romance and selling books did!
Thanks for the info.
Elizabeth

[cwmed]

Dear Gents,

We had an article in the Society of Civil War Surgeons newsletter on hospital flags of the war. The reaserch that has been done shows that very rarely if not ever red hospital flags were used by the fedral field hospitals or "dressing stations". There is evedence that proves the use of the yellow flag with the green "H" was not adopted in the late Civil War but used in the Mexican War. However the yellow flag with the green trim was used only in the Civil War after the developement of the "Ambulence Corps" but the yellow flag with the green "H" was in fact used all throughout the Civil War by Federal hospitals and field hospitals the only difference in the two is the size. If it was a large hospital the flag was very large like the one on display in the Natonal Museum of Civil War Medicine. If it was the smaller version it was used for field hospitals.

Thanks,

Luke A. Castleberry

[DrMcGuire]

Elizabeth,

The color of hospital flags and dressing station flags are often questioned, mainly because there was no "official" flags for either side until late in the war. At the beginning of the war, both the North and the South used a solid red flag to designate medical sites near the battlefield. Plain yellow was often used for more permanent hospitals located in nearby towns. By late 1862, the Union was using red or yellow or sometimes green. In January of 1864, an official hospital flag was adopted by the Union, yellow with a green "H." This flag was usually used for more permanent hospitals, not dressing station sites.

The Confederacy did not adopt an official flag, mainly using solid yellow or red to mark their hospitals. Yellow was used to designated an established hospital, and red a field hospital. The Confederacy did not use the yellow flag with the green "H".

I hope this helps.

Thanks,

Backing up what Doc Nelson said, when Dr. Hunter McGuire's ANV 2nd Corps field hospital was overrun at Waynesboro in 1864 they were still fying the solid red flag, which was captured by the Yankee invaders, as was Dr. McGuire.

[unionmed]

Gentlemen,

How accurate is it that at reenactments the Surgeon is on the battlfield-during the battle tending to the wounded? I have read that Surgeons were too valuable and could not take the chance of being killed/wounded so they were behind the lines at the Field Hospitals. Stewards also would not have been on the battlefield (with the battle in progress) since they primarily did the pharmacy work, is this accurate?

(Our unit does not go onto the battlefield during or after a battle, we water the men before and after).

Regards,
Pat
8th Michigan Medical

[hanktrent]

How accurate is it that at reenactments the Surgeon is on the battlfield-during the battle tending to the wounded? I have read that Surgeons were too valuable and could not take the chance of being killed/wounded so they were behind the lines at the Field Hospitals. Stewards also would not have been on the battlefield (with the battle in progress) since they primarily did the pharmacy work, is this accurate?

I think this brings up the whole problem of accurate handling of wounded at reenactments. Generally, there's not enough time, distance or transportation, so if medical reenactors are going to get involved, it needs to be immediate, close and quick, or the "wounded" will disappear.

There may have been specific historic times where it happened differently, but I think in general, you're right--wounded were not being tended at the same time and place as battle lines were actively engaged.

In real life, depending on the circumstances, the severely wounded wouldn't be going anywhere, and the walking wounded would be walking to well behind the lines, a half mile or more, to where, hopefully, a dressing station could be found. When it was safe to do so, hours later or the next day, ambulances could transport the severely wounded.

Unfortunately, to incorporate that at a reenactment, in real time and real distance, is extremely difficult, due to preferences of both reenactors and spectators (if any), not to mention land permission and vehicles for transportation. There have been times where it's been done well, and there are event organizers who support it and try to plan for it (Hi Kevin!) but I just don't see it as a high priority of the typical event.

(Our unit does not go onto the battlefield during or after a battle, we water the men before and after).

Along the same lines, how accurate is it for the medical department to be watering healthy men before or after a battle? Wouldn't getting men to a well or stream be the line officers' responsibility before, and afterwards the medical department would be focussed on the wounded, rather than men able to march off, who would again be the line officers' responsibility?

Maybe you've got more historic information on the medical department watering men who were fit for duty, and if so, I'd be interested in seeing it.

Hank Trent
hanktrent@voyager.net

["Doc" Nelson]

How accurate is it that at reenactments the Surgeon is on the battlfield-during the battle tending to the wounded?

Actually, Stretcher Bearers would have been sent out onto the Battlefield to "pickup" the wounded or, as Noah stated in another "message", the wounded would walk (well, the ones that could walk on their own) to the Field Dressing Station (or, as it's sometimes called: Forward Aid Station, Field Depot, etc.). Here, an Assistant Surgeon would bandage them. Determine who could be returned to their units and continue fighting. Those too severely wounded, would be transported to the Field Hospital. Sorry, didn't mean to go on like this. The "Surgeon" wouldn't have been on the battlefield, as you see at most events.

[NoahBriggs]

The surgeon would not be at the dressing station, but the assistant surgeon might be, with the orderly.