I have a question for you all that is both general and specific. Why did the Confederate States of America never focus directly on the source of all its troubles - Washington, D.C.? To be more specific, why does it seem that Jefferson Davis and Robert E. Lee never once defined their goal as the capture of the enemy's Capitol? That may seem absurd as a question; but I find nothing in Confederate discussions that matches the intensity of the call of "On to Richmond". From Day One the politicians on the Union side are focused on capturing the Confederate capitol and obsessed with protecting Washington. Why, with its wonderful ability to fight and move and fight again, did the Army of Northern Virginia never direct its campaigns against the nation's political and military headquarters?
Ethan Rafuse ends his recent book on Lee and the Confederacy by pointing out that smaller armies and poorer nations have defeated larger and wealthier ones. Rafuse mentions the success of Prussia against France as a specific example. The thesis of his book is that Lee had the advantage of mobility yet somehow was unable to use it successfully. If one has to criticize Lee as a commander, it makes far more sense to ask why he and Davis never assumed that their best strategy was to go for Washington as the Prussians went for Paris. A campaign plan that crossed the Potomac at Point of Rocks or White's Ferry and then cut the rail lines from Baltimore would have besieged Washington without having to attack its fortifications. Colonel Jackson's success at Harper's Ferry in May, 1861 offered a possible model.
I raise this question as someone who has the confidence of ignorance. My studies of the civil war have focused entirely on finance - how both sides paid for what they used, not on the battles or campaigns. What brought this question to mind was reading about how completely Buchanan, Stanton and Chase favored the Pennsylvania Railroad over the Baltimore & Ohio in subsidies and contracts before and during the war.