Reviewed by: Villainous Compounds: Chemical Weapons and the American Civil War by Guy R. Hasegawa Libra Hilde Villainous Compounds: Chemical Weapons and the American Civil War. By Guy R. Hasegawa. (Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press, 2015. Pp. xvi, 182. $29.50, ISBN 978-0-8093-3430-8.) Guy R. Hasegawa provides a detailed account of chemical weapons proposed, tested, and, on a few occasions, used during the Civil War. Though such weapons were rarely considered seriously, let alone developed or employed, Hasegawa shows that numerous civilians wrote to the Union and Confederate governments with ideas for chemical warfare. Hasegawa also explores the responses of government officials and the press, the patents received, and the handful of live demonstrations made before military officials. Based on extensive research and fascinating sources, the book is strong on detail, including the backgrounds of the individuals submitting ideas, the history of such weapons, the proposals themselves, the components of the potential weapons, how these weapons might have functioned and been implemented, and how the ideas presaged later developments in chemical warfare. The book includes a helpful glossary of technical terms. [End Page 185] In his descriptive account, Hasegawa leaves unexplored, beyond their impracticability, why these proposals were nearly always dismissed. Regarding the few cases of use, Hasegawa’s analysis of why, when, and where chemical weapons tended to be employed is inadequate. In addition, for a book that effectively speculates in discussing unnamed chemical agents and potential feasibility, the author rarely considers why each government might have been willing to use such weapons and under what conditions. The main question the author asks and answers—“Did any of the weapons have a reasonable chance of working?”—is interesting, but he fails to ask the more important historical questions (p. 4). Did any of these weapons have a reasonable chance of being employed, and if so, why, when, and where? How did war aims and context determine the reactions of military officials to chemical weapons proposals, and did those reactions change as war aims shifted? The northern pattern of use of incendiary devices indicates that they were deployed first in the West and then, after 1863, in the East. This change reflected shifting Union war aims, a factor never mentioned. Greek fire, as the most conventional of the chemical weapons, was the only chemical weapon type seriously considered or employed by the Union. Again, this fact seems unsurprising, and a discussion of Union goals is warranted. While Hasegawa mentions ethical concerns, he never delves into what it would mean to use poisonous agents on people who had only recently been countrymen. Because the Abraham Lincoln administration initially pursued a limited war, hoping to avoid antagonizing southerners so also to allow Unionism to reassert itself, the Union army was unlikely to approve unconventional weapons in the first two years of the war. When fighting for reunion, does it make sense to poison the people one intends to bring back into the fold? As Union war aims shifted from a limited war to a hard war, these proposals may well have met with a more favorable reception, but by that point the Union was beginning to prevail militarily. The South, in contrast, may have been more disposed to use such weapons because Confederates eschewed reunion. Secessionist rhetoric also vilified the Yankee invaders from the outset. Did this make Confederates more willing to employ “villainous compounds”? As the Confederacy became increasingly desperate, to the point of proposing arming slaves in the final months of the war, would it have been more open to using chemical weapons, or were rampant shortages by that time too debilitating even if the will existed? Finally, on three occasions, Hasegawa uncritically uses the phrase War between the States, demonstrating a further lack of awareness of historical context. Libra Hilde San Jose State University Copyright © 2017 The Southern Historical Association
Read full abstract
Jan 2, 2020
Mrittika Guha Sarkar 
Open Access