TEH AMERICAN REVOLOOTION

[Ancient Demon]

I would be Tory, of course.

[alfred russel]

One would think you'd be a little bit happier about the anglicization of millions of immigrants from all over Europe. No American Revolution means you guys have a slightly richer version of Canada/Australia.

Why would immigrants not go to a British alligned 'US'?

Would the British have been as willing and able to provide the "manifest destiny"? A contributing factor to the revolution was reluctance to allow settlers to move west, and the Louisiana Purchase would not have happened had the colonies still been british. The Mexican War may not have happened either.

There is also the factor of economic development: would the British Parliament, without American representation, have promoted policies as favorable to American growth? Would America get sucked into the European wars Britain fought, in addition to the US Civil War that almost certainly would have still occurred?

[Eddie Teach]

The British were the best chance the world has ever had for unification.
In the 19th century British power was already pretty complete, with the US onside too this would be even greater. No one would be able to compete and the spread of liberal democratic ideas would be assured.

British power did not extend past the range of the fleet's guns, that's hardly complete. As far as spreading liberal democracy, our very existence destroyed most of the Spanish empire, not to mention influencing the French Revolution.

The US is stronger today *because* it split from Britain when it did, while British power continued to grow in the period after they lost the colonies. What did Britain really lose? America expanded at the expense of France, Spain and Mexico. We opened Japan to western traders. We fought pirates. Then when you finally got embroiled in major wars on the continent, we fought on your side(eventually).

Faeelin- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadians_of_German_ethnicity

German Canadians (German: Deutsch-Kanadier or Deutschkanadier) are Canadians of ethnic German ancestry. The 2006 Canadian census put the number of Canadians of German ethnicity at 3,179,425. Only a small fraction of German Canadians are descendants of immigrants from what is today Germany.[citation needed]Far more have come from German populations in Eastern Europe and Russia with significant number[quantify] of Germans coming from Switzerland and the Low Countries; some have also come from Austria. Another large[quantify] group was those of German descent who came to Canada after spending a significant amount of time[quantify] in the United States.

[Sheilbh]

Foreigner.  AGITATE!  I love the American revolution

Though I can't think of a revolution I don't think I'd, at least initially, support...

[Faeelin]

British power did not extend past the range of the fleet's guns, that's hardly complete. As far as spreading liberal democracy, our very existence destroyed most of the Spanish empire, not to mention influencing the French Revolution.

It's not clear t me how great of an influence we were, or to assume that we destroyed the Spanish
Empire, as opposed to, you know, the Napoleonic Wars.

Why couldn't a British America open Japan (leaving aside the fact that Britain was sniffing around Japan at the time). Why ignore Britain's role in suppressing the pirates (as well as the slave trade far earlier).

German Canadians (German: Deutsch-Kanadier or Deutschkanadier) are Canadians of ethnic German ancestry. The 2006 Canadian census put the number of Canadians of German ethnicity at 3,179,425. Only a small fraction of German Canadians are descendants of immigrants from what is today Germany.[citation needed]Far more have come from German populations in Eastern Europe and Russia with significant number[quantify] of Germans coming from Switzerland and the Low Countries; some have also come from Austria. Another large[quantify] group was those of German descent who came to Canada after spending a significant amount of time[quantify] in the United States.

I am not convinced wikipedia addresses German immigration to a British America, or is even accurate. I will merely note the presence of plenty of Germans in New York, NJ, and Pennsylvania in colonial times.

[Zanza]

Only a small fraction of German Canadians are descendants of immigrants from what is today Germany.[citation needed]

I somehow doubt that.

[Josquius]

Would the British have been as willing and able to provide the "manifest destiny"? A contributing factor to the revolution was reluctance to allow settlers to move west, and the Louisiana Purchase would not have happened had the colonies still been british. The Mexican War may not have happened either.

I agree this US would be smaller but I wouldn't say thats entirely a bad thing. A nation of Indiana could well end up well.
Louisiana wouldn't be purchased but it would be taken before too long
Mexico...I'd think some of it would be taken at some point, its unlikely to have that big a frontier border and not have some run in.  Just look to the Boer states for a analogue that shows the British can play that game too.

There is also the factor of economic development: would the British Parliament, without American representation, have promoted policies as favorable to American growth?

Who says there would be no American representation?
Things wouldn't stay the same for all time, that's for sure. Either America would get some sort of Dominionesque status or things would take a separate path and we would get American MPs or perhaps a separate Imperial parliament.
And yes, development of the American economy would certainly be followed.

Would America get sucked into the European wars Britain fought,

And?

in addition to the US Civil War that almost certainly would have still occurred?

Uncertain.
The British government could well have the economic clout to compensate slave owners for freeing their slaves.
Even if conflict does emerge it would be put down far easier.

British power did not extend past the range of the fleet's guns, that's hardly complete.

The fleets guns and the pound.
If Britain decided to take a dislike to a continental power it would have a much harder time than against a maritime nation but it would still win out.

As far as spreading liberal democracy, our very existence destroyed most of the Spanish empire, not to mention influencing the French Revolution.

The American influence on the French revolution is grossly overstated. And that didn't exactly work out as planned.
As for the Spanish empire it was already on the decline.

The US is stronger today *because* it split from Britain when it did, while British power continued to grow in the period after they lost the colonies. What did Britain really lose? America expanded at the expense of France, Spain and Mexico. We opened Japan to western traders. We fought pirates. Then when you finally got embroiled in major wars on the continent, we fought on your side(eventually).

In the short term American independence was good for Britain. They no longer had to pay for the upkeep of the colonies but still got to trade with them. I'm looking at a longer term what's good for the world picture though.
All those other things could have been done by others too.

[Oexmelin]

Would the British have been as willing and able to provide the "manifest destiny"? A contributing factor to the revolution was reluctance to allow settlers to move west, and the Louisiana Purchase would not have happened had the colonies still been british. The Mexican War may not have happened either.

That's a common misconception. The British didn't want to prevent westward expansion. They wanted an «ordered» westward expansion, one that did not rely on enrichment schemes by speculators (such as Washington) who would then be unwilling to pay for Native conflicts.  The Pontiac War profoundly shocked observers in London (and cost a pretty penny) and amongst the root causes, as analyzed by experts, was disunited Native-colonial policy.

As for the Louisiana purchase, things would probably have gone radically different anyway. Without American Revolution, who knows what other conflict might have led to a change in international diplomacy that would have involved Spain (the «owner» of Louisiana until the San Ildefonso treaty).

[Sheilbh]

Surely Louisiana would have been seized by the British at around the same time, or before, the purchase happened?

[Faeelin]

Would the British have been as willing and able to provide the "manifest destiny"? A contributing factor to the revolution was reluctance to allow settlers to move west, and the Louisiana Purchase would not have happened had the colonies still been british. The Mexican War may not have happened either.

A couple thoughts here. First, it's not a given that the Mexican War happen if you're trying to change history from 1776. But I will note that there's no reason for Britain not to want a Pacific coastline; there were fears they'd grab it historically, after all.

Moreover, it seems hard to imagine that Britain would not grab Louisiana, given their interest in the reason historically. As for western colonization.... the British weren't opposed to it, as such. They supported it; witness how the infamous Proclamation of 1763 was continually readjusted in the years leading up to the Revolution. 

My guess is that if you want to abort the Revolution, you need some sort of settlement with the colonies.

Would America get sucked into the European wars Britain fought, in addition to the US Civil War that almost certainly would have still occurred?

Which European Wars? And without hope of British support, why would the southern states consider seceding?

[Faeelin]

Surely Louisiana would have been seized by the British at around the same time, or before, the purchase happened?

One interesting question is how much the Revolution set back American economic development. If you accept the most commonly accepted numbers, it would be considerably richer by 1803 or so, with a greater population, a more settled transappalachian, etc.  Given that during the Napoleonic Wars Britain gave serious thought to invading Uruguay, Mexico, Venzeuala, etc., rather than having a smaller British America, one could well see greater development.

[Oexmelin]

Surely Louisiana would have been seized by the British at around the same time, or before, the purchase happened?

It is most probable. Merchants from the Upper Mississippi, including the Illinois where the notion of who, actually, was in control was still in flux for the longest time, had strongly desired the status of free river for the Mississippi and merchants operating from Montreal had been trying to divert trade from their kin from New Orleans. Others still were working for Astor in New York, so I do not see how this would have changed.

Napoleon had planned to send troops but those were diverted by the Haitian Revolution. I have been through Clément Laussat's papers (the préfet who was sent to reinstate French rule) and the change of tone is hilarious (from «Frenchmen! You were never forgotten!» to «Dear Friends ! Today thanks to the Emperor, this is a new day for You!»)

[alfred russel]

Would the British have been as willing and able to provide the "manifest destiny"? A contributing factor to the revolution was reluctance to allow settlers to move west, and the Louisiana Purchase would not have happened had the colonies still been british. The Mexican War may not have happened either.

That's a common misconception. The British didn't want to prevent westward expansion. They wanted an «ordered» westward expansion, one that did not rely on enrichment schemes by speculators (such as Washington) who would then be unwilling to pay for Native conflicts.  The Pontiac War profoundly shocked observers in London (and cost a pretty penny) and amongst the root causes, as analyzed by experts, was disunited Native-colonial policy.

As for the Louisiana purchase, things would probably have gone radically different anyway. Without American Revolution, who knows what other conflict might have led to a change in international diplomacy that would have involved Spain (the «owner» of Louisiana until the San Ildefonso treaty).

Ordered = prevented, or at least slowed.

[alfred russel]

Surely Louisiana would have been seized by the British at around the same time, or before, the purchase happened?

It is most probable.

Disagree--just completing the outlines of a map of the territory was a major undertaking after the purchase. There was no way to militarily seize that much territory.

[Sheilbh]

One interesting question is how much the Revolution set back American economic development. If you accept the most commonly accepted numbers, it would be considerably richer by 1803 or so, with a greater population, a more settled transappalachian, etc.  Given that during the Napoleonic Wars Britain gave serious thought to invading Uruguay, Mexico, Venzeuala, etc., rather than having a smaller British America, one could well see greater development.

The Brits did invade Argentina and Uruguay.  The Reconquista which was almost entirely local because they couldn't expect Spanish support is seen as one of the first and most important expressions of an Argentine identity.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_invasions_of_the_Río_de_la_Plata