Would Lincoln have used chemical weapons, in the civil war?

No. Unequivocally and absolutely not. Lincoln’s oft-stated goal was to preserve the Union.

Chemical weapons, and the kind of indiscriminate carnage that they bring to military and civilian victims alike, would have destroyed any chance of that.

Lincoln was a tyrant during the Civil War; there’s no doubt of that. But he was a tyrant with a specific goal in mind, and the goal was not “to conquer at any cost”.

Yes, In the War of Northern Aggression he and his generals would have used any method available to secure a win, particularly in the initial stages of the conflict when there was considerable doubt as to the outcome. But, you cannot discount the final months either. Shermans march to the sea and the scorched earth methods he employed to ensure the total devastation of the Southern way of life would surely have been more efficiently accomplished if he could have gassed Atlanta while it burnt.

^That’s exactly why I asked. Sherman was let of his leash. I doubt any tactics would have been too extreme.

@CWOTUS . Maybe I’m wrong, but I see some parallels to Syria, and our civil war. Wasn’t Sherman’s March all about using every available method?

Sherman’s March to the sea was a military operation to destroy the enemy’s war-making capability. Although he certainly did target economic enterprises (including farms and railroads), he did not target civilian populations; he did not tolerate the wanton and indiscriminate murder of civilians.

I don’t think so. Lincoln knew and understood that the Confederate States were our brothers and (temporarily detached) countrymen, so he wouldn’t want to cause too much suffering…

@CWOTUS I agree completely.