Could Jackson have taken Washington DC in April of 1861?

Question:After seizing Harper's Ferry on 18 April, by 25 April Jackson had about fifteen hundred troops (with a morale raising, important militry vicotry under their belts). Washignton D.C was not far away and defended by about the same number (who had been quite harried during their jorney to D.C.). Could Jackson's men at least have set fire to Wash DC in April of 1861?

Best Answer - Chosen by Asker: After seizing Harper's Ferry on 18 April, by 25 April Jackson had about fifteen hundred troops (with a morale raising, important militry vicotry under their belts). Washignton D.C was not far away and defended by about the same number (who had been quite harried during their jorney to D.C.). Could Jackson's men at least have set fire to Wash DC in April of 1861?

No. General John Imboden was present at the Ferry and wrote at length about what happened at Harpers’ Ferry in April (and May) of 1861. Jackson was not available to command the troops at Harper’s Ferry during the time period raised in your question (Jackson did not arrive until the first week of May). Although substantial Virginia Militia were present at Harpers’ Ferry in April, they were ineffectually commanded by an assortment of amateur “Generals” (VA State Militia) who distinguished themselves during April of 1861 largely by letting the arsenal burn down and having daily parades up and down the streets of Harper’s Ferry. On 27 April, the Confederate government in Richmond immediately reduced all VA State Militia “Generals” to the rank of Captain, causing the four militia commanders at Harper’s Ferry to get mad and quit military service - not the kind of battlefield leaders that could have attacked Washington D.C. in April, 1861. Jackson was completely pre-occupied with ministerial tasks once he took over at Harper’s Ferry - for example, although the troops at Harper’s Ferry had good cannon, there were no artillery horses to pull the guns. By May of 1861, the Union had sufficiently fortified Washington D.C., and would continue to do so well into the war. IMO Wash DC was definitely vulnerable to Confederate attack on two occasions: #1 after the Battle of Bull Run (First Manassas) in July, 1861, and #2 for a few hours on the day in July (?), 1864, when Jubal Early and his men first arrived on the outskirts to Wash, DC, a few hours before the VI Corps arrived to reinforce the thin defenses of the Union capitol. To me, the greatest “what if” of the Civil War is what could/would have happened if the Confederate troops had followed up their massive victory at the Battle of Bull Run by pursuing the beaten Union army back to Washington D.C. If the Rebels had simply followed the fleeing Union troops into Wash DC, they could have done damage to the Union that might have been irreparable.

I just watched the video "Gods and Generals" the prequel to Ken Burn's magnificent "Gettysburg". From that and from reading about Thomas 'Stonewall' Jackson, I would definitely say that General Jackson would have won the Civil War if he had not been accidentally shot by his own troops! That man was a incredible contradiction in and of himself. He was devout to the extreme, kind and loving to friends and family, but on the battlefield he was the most complete and total warrior, giving no quarter, not even to his own troops who tried to desert. He was breath-takingly awesome!
The Union also had just as incredible and breath-taking officer in Col. D. L. Chamberlain of Maine who was, in battle,
Jackson's equal for courage and military ability, who was at all times devout, kind, and honorable. Where Jackson became a maniac in battle, Chamberlain remained calm and always thought of his troops. Chamberlain was a true hero.

Harper's Ferry was taken on April 19th. Jackson didn't arrive and take command until the April 29th.
Those 10 days were the critical days, if those 1500 could of coordinated an attack on Washington with secessionists/militia from Maryland , who knows, Washington was wide open for attack.
See Capital without Defenses in source.