Plausibility Check of Timeline-191 (aka Southern Victory)

[Belisarius II]

In terms of a long war and with no outside intervention, sure, the C.S. was likely to be beaten. This ignores that:

A) The Anglo-French were seriously considering intervention in the 1862-1863 timeframe as I pointed on in this very thread.
B) Wars are not solely determined by economic determinism; morale exists. As I also noted previously in this thread, Lincoln expected he was going to lose re-election as late as August of 1864 and the historian James McPherson notes that Northern morale was on the verge of quitting the war by then.

All it takes for the C.S. to win is one good battlefield success in the Fall of 1862 or 1864.



Which ignores the Black codes pre-dated the CSA's existence, underlying the racial animus, as well as the fact that the prohibition on Black voting rights was occurring....at the same time Confederates were killing Union soldiers IOTL. I fail to see how any of this changes.



It is indeed a meme, and the book citations I've already posted show this. I could add to them Robert Fogel's Without Consent or Contract and The Economics of Industrial Slavery and the Old South by Robert Starobin. In reality, the planters had no opposition to industrialization and the overall trends favored it; it was cost competitive with free labor and the rate of return was, in some cases, equal to cotton; overall it was not far behind. Indeed, hundreds of thousands of slaves even in 1860 were involved in Industrial or Proto-Industrial work and the overall proportion could and did show fluctuations. Case in point is the effort made to develop Birmingham as an industrial center in the 1850s by Planters.

There was no polling in this time period, any estimates of failing Union Moral were just guesses. Draft calls were filled, volunteers came forward, the army fought on, and elections were held. The anti war factions won few elections, and the army voted overwhelmingly for Lincoln. Everyone who voted for the democrats in 1864 didn't want the South to win, people vote the way they do for complex reasons. Likewise people in the North had inconsistent views about Blacks, holding racist views doesn't necessarily mean someone is indifferent to slavery. Before the war people in the North showed no support for enforcing the Fugitive Slave Act. Despite racist sentiments the North passed the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments, along with the Civil Rights Act of 1866, passed over a presidential veto.

Anglo/French intervention was never likely, it involved more risks then it was worth. The Union wasn't going to fold up because the British said BOO!

Southern Industrialization was more then a generation behind the North, and remained so for over 100 years after the CW. The Southern Aristocracy fought the war to maintain their planter culture, they disposed the Northern money grubbing bankers, and industrialists. Of course you can become what you hate, but where would they get the huge capital investments they needed? England, along with the other European Powers put their money into Northern Industry, and they sure weren't going to get it from the USA.

 

[History Learner]

Camp Hill would have involved essentially the armies that fought at Antietam. Can you layout a campaign plan that would end with the AOP being destroyed? Any defeat near Washington could never be complete, because the army could fall back on the city defenses. Generally the problem with Union Commanders was they were too cautious, not that they were reckless. There's a huge cottage industry that pumps out material suggesting if the Confederates had just pushed a little harder at such & such battle, the whole Union War Effort would've collapsed. Nonsense, the Confederates had more then their fair share of luck. In many battle it's easier to argue that the Union missed more opportunities to destroy Lee's Army then the other way around.

As I already said on the first page, Camp Hill as presented would not happen. Want a decisive Lee victory in the same timeframe, however? See the maneuvers at the Rapidan against Pope in August of 1862.

 

[History Learner]

There was no polling in this time period, any estimates of failing Union Moral were just guesses. Draft calls were filled, volunteers came forward, the army fought on, and elections were held. The anti war factions won few elections, and the army voted overwhelmingly for Lincoln. Everyone who voted for the democrats in 1864 didn't want the South to win, people vote the way they do for complex reasons.

There was no polling, true, which is why I cited the opinion of political operators in the contemporary timeframe as well as a preeminent Civil War historian whose research led him to conclude that there very much was faltering morale at this time. See the Battle of Fort Fizzle in Ohio in 1863, the Detroit Race Riots of 1863, the Charleston Riot in March of 1864 in Illinois, the Fishing Creek Confederacy in Pennsylvania from July to November of 1864, and the occupation of New York City by the Federal Army in the Fall of 1864. You can also view the newspaper reporting in the Summer of 1864 in general, as the Northern public was shocked by the immense casualties taken by Grant and inflation in July of 1864 reached its war-time height.

As for other elements, you said the Army voted overwhelmingly for Lincoln; this ignores that only a handful of states actually let their troops vote. How about the draft? Between July 1863 and December 1864, 161,224 men failed to report to service under the draft.

Likewise people in the North had inconsistent views about Blacks, holding racist views doesn't necessarily mean someone is indifferent to slavery. Before the war people in the North showed no support for enforcing the Fugitive Slave Act. Despite racist sentiments the North passed the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments, along with the Civil Rights Act of 1866, passed over a presidential veto.

The claim wasn't about slavery, however, but instead about the "lionization" of Black people in propaganda/general treatment.

Anglo/French intervention was never likely, it involved more risks then it was worth. The Union wasn't going to fold up because the British said BOO!

As I've already pointed out to you, Anglo-French intervention was realistic, nearly occurred, and would've been decisive. If you disagree, that's your right, but if you insist on arguing about it then I ask you to post citations backing your argument as I have done. If you're just going to blithely dismiss it despite ample counter-evidence having been presented, then further debate between us is meaningless.

Southern Industrialization was more then a generation behind the North, and remained so for over 100 years after the CW. The Southern Aristocracy fought the war to maintain their planter culture, they disposed the Northern money grubbing bankers, and industrialists. Of course you can become what you hate, but where would they get the huge capital investments they needed? England, along with the other European Powers put their money into Northern Industry, and they sure weren't going to get it from the USA.

They were not opposed to industrialization, as I've already pointed out, nor am I really sure where the idea of the South being so far behind comes from. Again, I've posted a lot of evidence to the contrary in the form of books, articles, etc from historians, peer reviewed journals and what not, so again, either you need to post something backing your argument or further debate is pointless.

 

[EnglishCanuck]

They were not opposed to industrialization, as I've already pointed out, nor am I really sure where the idea of the South being so far behind comes from. Again, I've posted a lot of evidence to the contrary in the form of books, articles, etc from historians, peer reviewed journals and what not, so again, either you need to post something backing your argument or further debate is pointless.

The 'behind' argument comes from, I think, the true fact at least that the South had only something like 10% of the 1860 industrial power of the United States. While true, it does ignore the fact that the South did do a fairly decent job of building a home industry and wasn't adverse to industry by itself. Though I do think that even an independent Confederate States would never be as industrialized as the United States, and probably end up by 1900 having the same industrial power of 1900 Italy for example.

 

[History Learner]

The 'behind' argument comes from, I think, the true fact at least that the South had only something like 10% of the 1860 industrial power of the United States. While true, it does ignore the fact that the South did do a fairly decent job of building a home industry and wasn't adverse to industry by itself. Though I do think that even an independent Confederate States would never be as industrialized as the United States, and probably end up by 1900 having the same industrial power of 1900 Italy for example.

Depends upon how you count it; the South as a region had 15% of the national industrial output, but the C.S.A. as an entity had 10% given the way the border states went.

On the size of the ATL Confederate economy, the 1914 US Census of Manufacturing shows that 9.5% of US manufacturing was in the former Confederate States, including Oklahoma. This was a return to form, as by 1914 the region at large was back to about 15%. If we go with Paul Kennedy's numbers for 1913 from The Rise and Fall of Great Powers, that places the former Confederate States IOTL 1914 at about half of France's industrial output. Without the devastation of 1864-1865, tariffs to protect the Confederate industry from its Union counterparts, and the Planters not wiped out, I think it's fair to say the Confederacy could at least have that same growth rate but here, it would avoid having the war damage decline of OTL that forced it to play "Catch up".

So, ATL, 19% of the OTL U.S. total. Kennedy says the U.S. output in 1913 was 32% of Global Output. If the Confederacy is 19% of that, it's 6% of Global output, which would put it equal to France in WWI. If it achieves a rate double that of OTL, then the Confederacy would be at over 9% of global output; for reference, the UK was at 13% in 1913 according to Kennedy.

 

[Ficboy]

I'd say that in terms of realistic power level: The Confederate States would be similar to Italy, an country with some influence in other places or in this countries and having just become an industrialized society after decades of agrarianism but not nearly as powerful as it's neighbors (The United States/Britain, France, Austria-Hungary and Germany).

The Golden Circle in concept would probably not come to fruition but a variant of this idea in the form of spreading influence to other countries via coup d'etats could happen.

 

[pattontank12]

Wonder if the Confederacy would get hit by Pellegra during the turn of the century/Great War much like the OTL south.

 

[History Learner]

I'd say that in terms of realistic power level: The Confederate States would be similar to Italy, an country with some influence in other places or in this countries and having just become an industrialized society after decades of agrarianism but not nearly as powerful as it's neighbors (The United States/Britain, France, Austria-Hungary and Germany).

The Golden Circle in concept would probably not come to fruition but a variant of this idea in the form of spreading influence to other countries via coup d'etats could happen.

If we go by OTL figures alone, it would be much more powerful than Italy:

10% of 32% the U.S. had in 1913 IOTL is 3.2% compared to Italy's 2.4% share of global output. This is also not accounting for the massive differences of the ATL compared to OTL that would benefit Southern industrial growth; my baseline of 6% in ATL 1913 is based upon them merely keeping their existing base intact and from there having the same growth rate instead of having to play catch up/rebuild. If it's a better growth rate-I suggest twice as good as OTL-then they reach over 9% by 1913.

 

[Belisarius II]

Depends upon how you count it; the South as a region had 15% of the national industrial output, but the C.S.A. as an entity had 10% given the way the border states went.

On the size of the ATL Confederate economy, the 1914 US Census of Manufacturing shows that 9.5% of US manufacturing was in the former Confederate States, including Oklahoma. This was a return to form, as by 1914 the region at large was back to about 15%. If we go with Paul Kennedy's numbers for 1913 from The Rise and Fall of Great Powers, that places the former Confederate States IOTL 1914 at about half of France's industrial output. Without the devastation of 1864-1865, tariffs to protect the Confederate industry from its Union counterparts, and the Planters not wiped out, I think it's fair to say the Confederacy could at least have that same growth rate but here, it would avoid having the war damage decline of OTL that forced it to play "Catch up".

So, ATL, 19% of the OTL U.S. total. Kennedy says the U.S. output in 1913 was 32% of Global Output. If the Confederacy is 19% of that, it's 6% of Global output, which would put it equal to France in WWI. If it achieves a rate double that of OTL, then the Confederacy would be at over 9% of global output; for reference, the UK was at 13% in 1913 according to Kennedy.

But in 1913 most of the former CSA GDP was agricultural production. Oil became another major generator of national income, but would have been dependent of Northern capital investment. Steel production based in Alabama was on a small scale compared to plants in the North. Just what would cause CSA growth rates to double from the OTL between 1865-1913? Northern Capital Investment would've been lower not higher. European Investment mostly went to the North, why would that change? The CSA would still have been a Banana Republic, dependent on cash crops, and oil exports.

Southern efforts to keep wages down by the mass use of convict labor doesn't say much for the prospects of rising standards of living. If slavery survived you'd have a race to the bottom between slaves, and convicts. Some land of opportunity, what a future for the working poor.

In Alabama, industrialization was generating a ravenous appetite for the state's coal and iron ore. Production was booming, and unions were attempting to organize unincarcerated miners. Convicts provided an ideal captive work force: cheap, usually docile, unable to organize and available when unincarcerated laborers went on strike."[39]The Southern agrarian economy did not accommodate convict leasing as well as the industrial economy did, whose jobs were often unappealing or dangerous, offering hard-labor and low pay. The competition, expansion, and growth of mining and steel companies also created a high demand for labor, but union labor posed a threat to expanding companies. As unions bargained for higher wages and better conditions, often organizing strikes in order to achieve their goals, the growing companies would be forced to agree to union demands or face abrupt halts in production. The rate companies paid for convict leases, which paid the laborer nothing, was regulated by government and state officials who entered the labor contracts with companies. "The companies built their own prisons, fed and clothed the convicts, and supplied guards as they saw fit." (Blackmon 2001)[39] Alabama's use of convict leasing was commanding; 51 of its 67 counties regularly leased convicts serving for misdemeanors at a rate of about $5-20 per month, equal to about $160-500 in 2015.[40] Although the influence of labor unions forced some states to move away from the profitable convict lease agreements and run traditional prisons, plenty of companies began substituting convict labor in their operations in the twentieth century. "The biggest user of forced labor in Alabama at the turn of the century was Tennessee Coal, Iron & Railroad Co., [of] U.S. Steel"[39]

 

[History Learner]

But in 1913 most of the former CSA GDP was agricultural production. Oil became another major generator of national income, but would have been dependent of Northern capital investment. Steel production based in Alabama was on a small scale compared to plants in the North. Just what would cause CSA growth rates to double from the OTL between 1865-1913? Northern Capital Investment would've been lower not higher. European Investment mostly went to the North, why would that change? The CSA would still have been a Banana Republic, dependent on cash crops, and oil exports.

Whether or not most of the GDP was derived from agriculture doesn't invalidate their level of global output. As for why their growth rates would be better:

- Avoiding the loss of one third of the Southern White population due to the conflict
- Protective tariffs and a culture of investment into infrastructure; the Antebellum South by the 1850s was routinely outspending the North at the State level on railways and other such instruments of industrialization
- Their own pool of investment potential funds valued equal to the North

Take, for example, the OTL practice of Pittsburgh pricing which made Alabama steel more expensive in Alabama than Pennsylvania steel. Once those got removed, Mobile quickly emerged as a major hub of shipbuilding.

Southern efforts to keep wages down by the mass use of convict labor doesn't say much for the prospects of rising standards of living. If slavery survived you'd have a race to the bottom between slaves, and convicts. Some land of opportunity, what a future for the working poor.

In Alabama, industrialization was generating a ravenous appetite for the state's coal and iron ore. Production was booming, and unions were attempting to organize unincarcerated miners. Convicts provided an ideal captive work force: cheap, usually docile, unable to organize and available when unincarcerated laborers went on strike."[39]The Southern agrarian economy did not accommodate convict leasing as well as the industrial economy did, whose jobs were often unappealing or dangerous, offering hard-labor and low pay. The competition, expansion, and growth of mining and steel companies also created a high demand for labor, but union labor posed a threat to expanding companies. As unions bargained for higher wages and better conditions, often organizing strikes in order to achieve their goals, the growing companies would be forced to agree to union demands or face abrupt halts in production. The rate companies paid for convict leases, which paid the laborer nothing, was regulated by government and state officials who entered the labor contracts with companies. "The companies built their own prisons, fed and clothed the convicts, and supplied guards as they saw fit." (Blackmon 2001)[39] Alabama's use of convict leasing was commanding; 51 of its 67 counties regularly leased convicts serving for misdemeanors at a rate of about $5-20 per month, equal to about $160-500 in 2015.[40] Although the influence of labor unions forced some states to move away from the profitable convict lease agreements and run traditional prisons, plenty of companies began substituting convict labor in their operations in the twentieth century. "The biggest user of forced labor in Alabama at the turn of the century was Tennessee Coal, Iron & Railroad Co., [of] U.S. Steel"[39]

Not really seeing your argument here; the South never really got immigrants?

 

[Ficboy]

I'd say for immigration to the Confederate States: It would still occur just not to the extent seen with the United States.

 

[Belisarius II]

Whether or not most of the GDP was derived from agriculture doesn't invalidate their level of global output. As for why their growth rates would be better:

- Avoiding the loss of one third of the Southern White population due to the conflict
- Protective tariffs and a culture of investment into infrastructure; the Antebellum South by the 1850s was routinely outspending the North at the State level on railways and other such instruments of industrialization
- Their own pool of investment potential funds valued equal to the North

Take, for example, the OTL practice of Pittsburgh pricing which made Alabama steel more expensive in Alabama than Pennsylvania steel. Once those got removed, Mobile quickly emerged as a major hub of shipbuilding.



Not really seeing your argument here; the South never really got immigrants?

Were the CSA GDP came from is relevant because were talking about levels of industrialization. Just saying they had a high level of economic output doesn't address that question. The South didn't lose 1/3 of it's White Population. Even with new data it wasn't nearly that high.

Although this census-based method does not distinguish between Union and Confederate deaths, Hacker was able to discern patterns for various regions of birth. For instance, he concluded that mortality was significantly higher for white males between the ages of 10 and 44 born in the South (13.1 percent) and in the slave-holding border states of Missouri, Kentucky, Maryland and Delaware (12.7 percent) than for those born in the free states and territories (6.1 percent). At a more granular level, 22.6 percent of Southern men who were between the ages of 20 and 24 in 1860 lost their lives because of the war, according to Hacker’s findings.

The CSA wouldn't have gotten any Union Money to build a steel industry, and the British wouldn't have helped them develop a competing one. CSA Steel would've suffered worse from Northern Tariffs being on the outside, then they did on the inside.

Southern States spending more on industrial infrastructure doesn't prove much, because Federal Investment more then made up for it. The CSA Constitution would've prevented central government support for the growth of industry, and infrastructure. It's hard to imagine a modern a national economy thriving under these conditions. This is a constitution for a pre industrial society. The best thing that ever happened to the Southern Economy was losing the war.

Sec. 8. The Congress shall have power-

(I) To lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises for revenue, necessary to pay the debts, provide for the common defense, and carry on the Government of the Confederate States; but no bounties shall be granted from the Treasury; nor shall any duties or taxes on importations from foreign nations be laid to promote or foster any branch of industry; and all duties, imposts, and excises shall be uniform throughout the Confederate States.

(2) To borrow money on the credit of the Confederate States.

(3) To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes; but neither this, nor any other clause contained in the Constitution, shall ever be construed to delegate the power to Congress to appropriate money for any internal improvement intended to facilitate commerce; except for the purpose of furnishing lights, beacons, and buoys, and other aids to navigation upon the coasts, and the improvement of harbors and the removing of obstructions in river navigation; in all which cases such duties shall be laid on the navigation facilitated thereby as may be necessary to pay the costs and expenses thereof.



My quote
"Southern efforts to keep wages down by the mass use of convict labor doesn't say much for the prospects of rising standards of living. If slavery survived you'd have a race to the bottom between slaves, and convicts. Some land of opportunity, what a future for the working poor."

Your statement about the South never really getting immigrants was a non sequitur. What does it have to do with slave, and convict labor being used to keep wages down? The fact that the North got large numbers of immigrant, and the South didn't was a competitive advantage for the North. People are capital.

 

[Belisarius II]

I'd say for immigration to the Confederate States: It would still occur just not to the extent seen with the United States.

The lack of opportunity, the institution of slavery, and the elitist nature of Southern Society would keep immigration down. Why would people flee to what they were running away from?

 

[Ficboy]

The lack of opportunity, the institution of slavery, and the elitist nature of Southern Society would keep immigration down. Why would people flee to what they were running away from?

While it wasn't nearly to the extent seen in the North, the South had some immigration from places such as Italy for instance (why do you think there is an American Mafia in the first place they originated in New Orleans, Louisiana), Ireland and to a lesser Germany. The Confederate States especially if and when they abolish slavery (out of pragmatic reasons by the way) would try to attract immigrants from Europe and try is the key word here.

 

[History Learner]

Were the CSA GDP came from is relevant because were talking about levels of industrialization. Just saying they had a high level of economic output doesn't address that question.

...which is why I cited their OTL level of manufacturing output, which is rather a good metric of industrialization, no? I'm not sure quite frankly what you're attempting to argue here.

The South didn't lose 1/3 of it's White Population. Even with new data it wasn't nearly that high.

Although this census-based method does not distinguish between Union and Confederate deaths, Hacker was able to discern patterns for various regions of birth. For instance, he concluded that mortality was significantly higher for white males between the ages of 10 and 44 born in the South (13.1 percent) and in the slave-holding border states of Missouri, Kentucky, Maryland and Delaware (12.7 percent) than for those born in the free states and territories (6.1 percent). At a more granular level, 22.6 percent of Southern men who were between the ages of 20 and 24 in 1860 lost their lives because of the war, according to Hacker’s findings.

The claim wasn't that the South lost one third of it's white population, it was that it lost one third of its White Male population. You constructed a strawman here.

The CSA wouldn't have gotten any Union Money to build a steel industry, and the British wouldn't have helped them develop a competing one. CSA Steel would've suffered worse from Northern Tariffs being on the outside, then they did on the inside.

Leaving aside the fact that they very much would get American and British investment-and I challenge you to cite something to the contrary-they really wouldn't need it. Cotton exports alone were valued at $227 Million in 1870, while the slave holdings themselves were worth $3 Billion; this being equal to the entire value of Northern factories, railways, etc.

Southern States spending more on industrial infrastructure doesn't prove much, because Federal Investment more then made up for it. The CSA Constitution would've prevented central government support for the growth of industry, and infrastructure. It's hard to imagine a modern a national economy thriving under these conditions. This is a constitution for a pre industrial society. The best thing that ever happened to the Southern Economy was losing the war.

Which is why I've cited numerous books that completely destroy this myth; case in point was the Constitutional loopholes the Davis Administration used during the war to undertake a major campaign of railway building. How about the Selma Iron Works or the Augusta Powder Plan, both largely built with Richmond's blessing and money?

My quote
"Southern efforts to keep wages down by the mass use of convict labor doesn't say much for the prospects of rising standards of living. If slavery survived you'd have a race to the bottom between slaves, and convicts. Some land of opportunity, what a future for the working poor."

Your statement about the South never really getting immigrants was a non sequitur. What does it have to do with slave, and convict labor being used to keep wages down? The fact that the North got large numbers of immigrant, and the South didn't was a competitive advantage for the North. People are capital.

It was in response to your statement about being a land of opportunity; again, however, I fail to see your point here about low wages. That would be a boon for industrialization, not an impediment.

 

[Belisarius II]

As I already said on the first page, Camp Hill as presented would not happen. Want a decisive Lee victory in the same timeframe, however? See the maneuvers at the Rapidan against Pope in August of 1862.

Well that was underwhelming. So just attacking as planned would have destroyed Pope's whole army? The ANV would've suffered no additional losses, gets to rest a few days, and starts the Maryland Invasion a week early. Cap that off with the Royal Naval sailing into New York Harbor to collect the surrender of the Brooklyn Navy Yard. Respectfully the number of wildly optimistic assumptions in this TL are too long to fully explore. Just sit down and try to imagine the number of things that have work with surgical precision for that to happen, and how many mistakes the Union Army has to make, and ask yourself how likely this is.

 

[Belisarius II]

While it wasn't nearly to the extent seen in the North, the South had some immigration from places such as Italy for instance (why do you think there is an American Mafia in the first place they originated in New Orleans, Louisiana), Ireland and to a lesser Germany. The Confederate States especially if and when they abolish slavery (out of pragmatic reasons by the way) would try to attract immigrants from Europe and try is the key word here.

Those Italians came after the CW. Abolish Slavery? As members of the Confederate Congress said during the debate about raising Black Soldiers, "What did we fight the war for?" The CSA Constitution prohibited them from abolish slavery. Why would the CSA want to attract immigrants who weren't white enough for bigots in the North? Catholics, and Jews forget about it. What do you think the Klan was about? WASP Nation CSA.

 

[History Learner]

Well that was underwhelming. So just attacking as planned would have destroyed Pope's whole army? The ANV would've suffered no additional losses, gets to rest a few days, and starts the Maryland Invasion a week early. Cap that off with the Royal Naval sailing into New York Harbor to collect the surrender of the Brooklyn Navy Yard. Respectfully the number of wildly optimistic assumptions in this TL are too long to fully explore. Just sit down and try to imagine the number of things that have work with surgical precision for that to happen, and how many mistakes the Union Army has to make, and ask yourself how likely this is.

Very likely, and I'm not even positing Union mistakes, just correcting Confederate ones.

Pope's army had only one route of escape/resupply, his flank was open and Lee intended to hit it; what went wrong was Lee was forced to delay the attack by 24 hours due to Fitz Hugh's diversion. By the time Lee started up again, Pope was already pulling out of the danger zone. Had Lee struck on time, Pope would've not been able to escape, and Lee would've trapped him in a "triangle" of two rivers with no available crossings and Lee's army to his front with numerical parity. Ask yourself what happens when an army is encircled with no resupply.

If you don't agree, that's your right, but the evidence is clear and if you wish to argue it, I ask you to post something in counter in terms of citations.

 

[Belisarius II]

Very likely, and I'm not even positing Union mistakes, just correcting Confederate ones.

Pope's army had only one route of escape/resupply, his flank was open and Lee intended to hit it; what went wrong was Lee was forced to delay the attack by 24 hours due to Fitz Hugh's diversion. By the time Lee started up again, Pope was already pulling out of the danger zone. Had Lee struck on time, Pope would've not been able to escape, and Lee would've trapped him in a "triangle" of two rivers with no available crossings and Lee's army to his front with numerical parity. Ask yourself what happens when an army is encircled with no resupply.

If you don't agree, that's your right, but the evidence is clear and if you wish to argue it, I ask you to post something in counter in terms of citations.

What citations can you have for an event that didn't happen? Your assumptions are that if Fitz Hugh's Brigade was in just the right place, at the right time his attack would have been an automatic success. Further you assume that Union forces had no way to detect that Longstreet was approaching, other then capturing Lee's plans. That Union Cavalry was there for a reason, they were scouting for enemy forces, what if they found them? Longstreet said he wasn't ready to attack on the 19th, so how long would Pope have had to sit there waiting to be Lee's passive victim? You also assume any battle at even odds will result in an automatic Confederate victory. After that you assume any battles in Maryland will be automatic Confederate Victories. You then assume an automatic immediate British, French Intervention. Your making a lot of automatic assumptions.

 

[History Learner]

What citations can you have for an event that didn't happen?

I'm not expecting you to prove something that didn't happen but as is normal in this genre, we provide evidence to back up our speculations. If you disagree with my analysis, that's fine, but the common retort is to provide your own evidence in return.

Your assumptions are that if Fitz Hugh's Brigade was in just the right place, at the right time his attack would have been an automatic success.

Given that even after Lee's plans were discovered the Confederates still managed to attack the Federal railway bridges successfully, yes.

Further you assume that Union forces had no way to detect that Longstreet was approaching, other then capturing Lee's plans. That Union Cavalry was there for a reason, they were scouting for enemy forces, what if they found them?

They did IOTL, but the problem with that is Lee's attack was set to start off before they would have time to do such.

Longstreet said he wasn't ready to attack on the 19th, so how long would Pope have had to sit there waiting to be Lee's passive victim?

Which is to misrepresent Longstreet, who said he was not ready in response to Jackson's suggestion for an attack earlier than what Lee had originally planned. Anderson's troops and Longstreets supplies arrived, however, by the afternoon of the 18th in time for Lee's planned departure.

You also assume any battle at even odds will result in an automatic Confederate victory.

Pope's flank is open, and both armies are numerically equal. Given Lee was able to beat Pope just a few days later despite 25,000 Federal reinforcements having arrived in the interim, I see no reason to assume Lee's attack would fail. As I said before: what happens when an Army is encircled with no resupply or escape? To quote from the above link:

After that you assume any battles in Maryland will be automatic Confederate Victories.

Because the Army of the Potomac is short 50,000 men and something like a third to nearly half of the now rump Army is green recruits. Can you explain to me, in your judgement, why they would not win win a battle under such circumstances?

You then assume an automatic immediate British, French Intervention. Your making a lot of automatic assumptions.

I'm assuming Anglo-French intervention occurs on the basis of a decisive battlefield success by the Confederates, yes. As has pointed out repeatedly, this was the state of their diplomacy at this critical juncture.