E.P. Alexander: Why it is better to use opium than booze in the Army of Northern Virginia

Pat Young

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Featured Book Reviewer
Joined
Jan 7, 2013
Location
Long Island, NY
Still reading E.P. Alexander's Personal Memoirs. Found this interesting incident from Alexander's account of July 3, 1863. This was the morning of Pickett's Charge at Gettysburg. I was surprised that the doctor in question got off easier because he was using opium instead of alcohol. Anyone know why being stoned was better than being drunk?

I recall one incident of a ride this morning to our extreme right flank, to visit the guns assigned for its protection. I came upon two lieutenants, of a Miss. regt., apparently robbing the dead body of a Confederate officer, lying in the road. I stopped to reproach them & they said, “He is not dead, dam+ him, he is drunk. It is our surgeon & he is drunk too off whiskey issued for the wounded; and it’s not the first time, either. We are just taking his instruments to take care of them.” I said, “Toss him about! Roll him! Shake him! See if you can’t arouse him.” They did so but he would no more arouse than a dead man. Then I said, “Every officer owes it to discipline to report such a case. Give me all your names.” When we returned to Virginia I preferred charges against the surgeon. He was left in Pa. in charge of our wounded, at houses near the battlefield, when we retreated to Virginia, & the case only came on for trial, by our military court, next spring in East Tenn. The poor fellow’s friends had prevailed upon the two lieutenants to say that it was possible he might have only been under the influence of opium, & not drunk; & in spite of my testimony the court, I am exceedingly glad to say, divided, which operated as an acquit[ t]al. Three judges composed the court, but only two were present. I am very grateful for the result because I had perhaps too much youthful indignation at a crime to which I never had any personal inclination, and I had made the charges too severe: “Misbehavior before the enemy,” or something like that, which might even have allowed him to be shot.

Fighting for the Confederacy: The Personal Recollections of General Edward Porter Alexander (Civil War America) (p. 253). The University of North Carolina Press. Kindle Edition.
 
Still reading E.P. Alexander's Personal Memoirs. Found this interesting incident from Alexander's account of July 3, 1863. This was the morning of Pickett's Charge at Gettysburg. I was surprised that the doctor in question got off easier because he was using opium instead of alcohol. Anyone know why being stoned was better than being drunk?

I recall one incident of a ride this morning to our extreme right flank, to visit the guns assigned for its protection. I came upon two lieutenants, of a Miss. regt., apparently robbing the dead body of a Confederate officer, lying in the road. I stopped to reproach them & they said, “He is not dead, dam+ him, he is drunk. It is our surgeon & he is drunk too off whiskey issued for the wounded; and it’s not the first time, either. We are just taking his instruments to take care of them.” I said, “Toss him about! Roll him! Shake him! See if you can’t arouse him.” They did so but he would no more arouse than a dead man. Then I said, “Every officer owes it to discipline to report such a case. Give me all your names.” When we returned to Virginia I preferred charges against the surgeon. He was left in Pa. in charge of our wounded, at houses near the battlefield, when we retreated to Virginia, & the case only came on for trial, by our military court, next spring in East Tenn. The poor fellow’s friends had prevailed upon the two lieutenants to say that it was possible he might have only been under the influence of opium, & not drunk; & in spite of my testimony the court, I am exceedingly glad to say, divided, which operated as an acquit[ t]al. Three judges composed the court, but only two were present. I am very grateful for the result because I had perhaps too much youthful indignation at a crime to which I never had any personal inclination, and I had made the charges too severe: “Misbehavior before the enemy,” or something like that, which might even have allowed him to be shot.

Fighting for the Confederacy: The Personal Recollections of General Edward Porter Alexander (Civil War America) (p. 253). The University of North Carolina Press. Kindle Edition.

No idea, but I'm really glad I bought "Fighting for the Confederacy"! :tongue:
 
The surgeons from Mississippi Regiments that were left behind to care for the wounded and who would have been over on the right were from McLaws Division
- Frank W. Patterson, Surgeon, 17th Mississippi
- Robert Lee Knox, Acting Assistant Surgeon, 17th Mississippi
- C. H. Brown, Acting Assistant Surgeon, 18th Mississippi
 
Have you read it yet?

Not yet. I'm going through a re-read of my Confederate biographies, and after finishing A.P Hill I have Ewell, Stuart, and Alexander's "Military Memoirs of a Confederate" before I hit "Fighting for the Confederacy".

Definitely looking forward to it, though; especially after having watched the Civil War Institute's panel on the book and Gary Gallagher's talk during the Greystone Books "History 2000" weekend.
 
Still reading E.P. Alexander's Personal Memoirs. Found this interesting incident from Alexander's account of July 3, 1863. This was the morning of Pickett's Charge at Gettysburg. I was surprised that the doctor in question got off easier because he was using opium instead of alcohol. Anyone know why being stoned was better than being drunk?

I recall one incident of a ride this morning to our extreme right flank, to visit the guns assigned for its protection. I came upon two lieutenants, of a Miss. regt., apparently robbing the dead body of a Confederate officer, lying in the road. I stopped to reproach them & they said, “He is not dead, dam+ him, he is drunk. It is our surgeon & he is drunk too off whiskey issued for the wounded; and it’s not the first time, either. We are just taking his instruments to take care of them.” I said, “Toss him about! Roll him! Shake him! See if you can’t arouse him.” They did so but he would no more arouse than a dead man. Then I said, “Every officer owes it to discipline to report such a case. Give me all your names.” When we returned to Virginia I preferred charges against the surgeon. He was left in Pa. in charge of our wounded, at houses near the battlefield, when we retreated to Virginia, & the case only came on for trial, by our military court, next spring in East Tenn. The poor fellow’s friends had prevailed upon the two lieutenants to say that it was possible he might have only been under the influence of opium, & not drunk; & in spite of my testimony the court, I am exceedingly glad to say, divided, which operated as an acquit[ t]al. Three judges composed the court, but only two were present. I am very grateful for the result because I had perhaps too much youthful indignation at a crime to which I never had any personal inclination, and I had made the charges too severe: “Misbehavior before the enemy,” or something like that, which might even have allowed him to be shot.

Fighting for the Confederacy: The Personal Recollections of General Edward Porter Alexander (Civil War America) (p. 253). The University of North Carolina Press. Kindle Edition.
As I understand it, opiates in various form were widely used to treat a variety of ailments during that time. Perhaps this influenced the proceedings.
 
A couple of baselining points before answering the title question:

  • In addition to the book referenced that was really written by Gary Gallagher (he lists himself as editor) who put together several previously unpublished Alexander pieces, in 1989, Alexander wrote his own memoirs Military Memoirs of a Confederate: A Critical Narrative. and published it in 1903.
  • Alexander was full of himself. He suggests more than once that R.E. Lee had asked his opinion about how to do things, which is at best laughable.
  • Heard the lore of the lost Confederate Treasure? Alexander was in the center of that one as well.

That said, opium works faster, needs to be administered in lesser quantities, and last longer than booze. Esp. moonshine.
 
Definitely possible.

Was there a social reaction to alcohol at the time (i.e. the intemperance movement) that made alcohol worse in society's eyes than opium?
Probably not so much a social reaction as an ethical one. The alcohol was considered a stimulant vitally necessary for the treatment of the battlefield wounded. The surgeon consuming it when the wounded would need it was an outrage. Opiates were commonly used for diarrhea, malaria, intermittent fever, dysentery, headache, female complaints....you name it. Dover's Powder, used to treat cold symptoms, had opium in it.
 
Probably not so much a social reaction as an ethical one. The alcohol was considered a stimulant vitally necessary for the treatment of the battlefield wounded. The surgeon consuming it when the wounded would need it was an outrage. Opiates were commonly used for diarrhea, malaria, intermittent fever, dysentery, headache, female complaints....you name it. Dover's Powder, used to treat cold symptoms, had opium in it.

That would definitely make sense.
 
It does seem that being stoned was better than being drunk. Drinking, in that day of temperance movements and strong negative opinions of liquor, was a moral dissipation and lack of character. Honor was important. A lot of ladies of the day had their opium solutions when probably a shot or two was all they really needed - but that wasn't acceptable! Then, again, there are things even worse than drink. One general had a seizure and fell off his horse, wasn't able to get his brigades to where they were supposed to be - he was dismissed for drunkenness and never challenged it. Better to be a drunk than an epileptic!
 
Definitely possible.
Was there a social reaction to alcohol at the time (i.e. the intemperance movement) that made alcohol worse in society's eyes than opium?
Thanks for your response.
Indeed there was! In fact, my first Civil War 'artifact' was a Temperance booklet carried by one of my family CW participants while in service, a reminder to stay away from 'Demon Rum'!
 
It does seem that being stoned was better than being drunk. Drinking, in that day of temperance movements and strong negative opinions of liquor, was a moral dissipation and lack of character. Honor was important. A lot of ladies of the day had their opium solutions when probably a shot or two was all they really needed - but that wasn't acceptable! Then, again, there are things even worse than drink. One general had a seizure and fell off his horse, wasn't able to get his brigades to where they were supposed to be - he was dismissed for drunkenness and never challenged it. Better to be a drunk than an epileptic!

Totally should have said "moral" instead of "social" (Long day at work).

Kinda off-topic, but I wonder if generals removed for drunkenness (Miles, Rowley, etc.) would have been treated differently if they were stoned rather than drunk. Most likely not, but still worth asking.
 
Kinda off-topic, but I wonder if generals removed for drunkenness (Miles, Rowley, etc.) would have been treated differently if they were "stoned" rather than drunk. Most likely not, but still worth asking.
There was very little "recreational use" of opium, laudanum, or morphine. So they didnt know they were "stoned." Everyone who took it, did so for medicinal purposes - or thought they were - at least at first. I believe the side effects of opium were an expected and accepted by-product. Just like you might get dry mouth from your sinus medicine or a stomach ache from an antibiotic. Sort of like - Nothing going on here. Move along - just the side effects of his medical treatment. As opposed to drunkenness - which was the result of over-indulgence and as @diane mentioned indication of weak character. Course that didnt mean people didnt develop addictions - it was just as addictive then - maybe more so, due to the purity available.
 
There was very little "recreational use" of opium, laudanum, or morphine. So they didnt know they were "stoned." Everyone who took it, did so for medicinal purposes - or thought they were - at least at first. I believe the side effects of opium were an expected and accepted by-product. Just like you might get dry mouth from your sinus medicine or a stomach ache from an antibiotic. Sort of like - Nothing going on here. Move along - just the side effects of his medical treatment. As opposed to drunkenness - which was the result of over-indulgence and as @diane mentioned indication of weak character. Course that didnt mean people didnt develop addictions - it was just as addictive then - maybe more so, due to the purity available.

Gotcha. Thanks for the insight! :smile:
 
Totally should have said "moral" instead of "social" (Long day at work).

Kinda off-topic, but I wonder if generals removed for drunkenness (Miles, Rowley, etc.) would have been treated differently if they were stoned rather than drunk. Most likely not, but still worth asking.

Actually, I think you're onto something there! Opium was real medicine, after all. Could be the guy was sick and it was a passing thing - not so, a drunk. Then you're a debauched oaf never to be trusted.

The general in my post was Brigadier General Rufus King, whose division included the famed Iron Brigade. They weren't famed yet! The battle was Brawner's Farm. From descriptions, it sounds like it was a grand mal seizure, but apparently somebody smelled liquor. He was confused and disoriented for a few days, postictal state, and should have turned over command to someone else but did not...which is not uncommon. Good judgement goes out the window! As a matter of fact, there were three or four other generals who were also epileptics and had seizures in combat. They breathed nary a word of it - a whiff of that would get you kicked out of the army faster than ten drunk sprees!
 
The surgeons from Mississippi Regiments that were left behind to care for the wounded and who would have been over on the right were from McLaws Division
- Frank W. Patterson, Surgeon, 17th Mississippi
- Robert Lee Knox, Acting Assistant Surgeon, 17th Mississippi
- C. H. Brown, Acting Assistant Surgeon, 18th Mississippi
Thanks for the suspects!
 
America was and is a drinking society. Unfortunately we always have been.

Numerous officers were accused of drunken behavior on both sides. If they succeeded it wasn't mentioned. If failure occurred in a certain battle or situation; an officers occasional or habitual use of booze was used by opponents to remove or try to remove them. But it was definitely not seen as a weakness until failure ensued. IMHO

The troops of several Rebel generals nicknamed their commanding general as, "Ole whiskey barrel"! I believe "Shank" Evans was among that number. He died of a heart condition in 62'.

Yankees accused by media were Grant & Hooker (likely more justified accusation then Grants) just to name a couple. One incident that stands out is that of general Leslie. He had command over troops attacking the Crater at Petersburg.

He did not advance with his troops into that hell. Instead he remained behind the lines drinking booze in a bomb proof shelter. He had good company with Gen. Ferraro who was surprisingly a teetotaler! Ferrero btw, was the commander who promised reestablishment a whiskey ration to his troops if they would attack and carry the Burnside Bridge at the battle of Antietam!
 
Last edited:
Back
Top