What if?

[Incongruous]

As said before, all would have been depending of the terms of the Defeat of the Insurgents. And would have been the terms for peace with France?

The King George was able to sign with the new USA a separate Peace Treaty, but if the US side would have been defeated, the UK would still have to deal with France.
To carry on the war would have be a menace for India, when the French were doing good progress. The Louisiana was still French, and Louis the XVI, unlike his grand-Father Louis the XV had interest in over sea territories.

We can imagine the leaders of the Insurgents, shipped to France or to a French territory, creating a Provisional Government, and starting a guerrilla war on the British, sending spies and agents in Quebec, recently occupied by the English with French courreurs des bois along side American rangers sneaking through the forests and cutting Red Coats necks…

Problem, if Washington and Franklin were dead, the game was up, it was only the ability of Washington to lead (perhaps not that well sometimes) and Franklin's ability to tell very well worded lies that allowed the rebels to mount an armed conflict.

Problem two, France had no money, the crown may have been interested in overseas territory but nothing could turn back the tide for French colonial efforts after the disaster of the Seven Years War, the game was very much "up". Any attempt by the French to ship the rebel leaders anywhere would most certainly have been met by an offer of battle from the Royal Navy.

[Brenus]

"if Washington and Franklin were dead": Well, it depends on when this happened. For what I remember Franklin came back to America quite late...
It is often a temptation to believe in the th "imperialist" camp that to kill the leader kill the revolt. What you have to do it to kill the reasons of the revolt...

"Any attempt by the French to ship the rebel leaders anywhere would most certainly have been met by an offer of battle from the Royal Navy." And? It woudn't be the first time that the French Navy would defeat the Royal Navy, especially at this period...
The problem is when we speak about navies, people think the Royal Navy invincible. It was far to be true at these times...

"Problem two, France had no money, the crown may have been interested in overseas territory but nothing could turn back the tide for French colonial efforts after the disaster of the Seven Years War, the game was very much "up""
Agree about the money. However, the English Example proved that you can ruin your country if you end as the victor and get the Colonial Empire. It could have been the conclusion of the French Ministers...
The game wasn't over. Georges III did recognised the US independance because he was loosing India. He was in the process to loose India is more accurate.
The succession of 5 major naval battles were, according English sources, a draw but a strategic victory for the French who landed troops and took some town(s).
George was not ready to gamble India for US so decide to sign a peace treaty.
Because it was a separate one (against previous agreement between France and futur US) Louis the XVI wasn't able to gain any thing about the peace so was left only with a HUGE debts and a nobility ready to challenge any taxation...

[Ariovistus Maximus]

Definitely would have depended on how the British treated the Americans after the war. But there would still be an element of discontent, and eventually it would have boiled over again, and again if necessary. Pretty inevitable.

That's really why no totalitarian regime (not to say that Britain was that bad; just an example) can last for long with a discontent populace. For instance, suppose that the Germans had blasted the Brits @ Dunkirk, the Russians @ Moscow, etc., then backstabbed the Japanese and taken over the WHOOOOLE world. Even if that were possible, how long would it have lasted? Certainly no more than a generation or two. Its simply impossible to control that many people unless they like it.

Caligula said, "Let them hate us, so long as they fear us." Well, that's true. But you better watch out because as soon when they stop fearing you (and they will; it's just a matter of time) your days are numbered. In single digits. Or perhaps their hate will overcome their fear. Then your days will still be numbered, but you will have a few more of them.

History is often a great big cycle. Take great empires for instance.

Start small > start growing > discover they have considerable ability > start eating up more territory > become major power > but then they start to have to much stuff to manage it all effectively > from this time on, they are largely riding off the momentum of earlier successes > begin to decay > corruption sets in > maybe a revival or two > but ultimately they start to crack > eventually they topple > which opens up for a new empire that will repeat the process.

Or take society. Most social reform is a big flip-flop in basically a big class struggle.

There are rich people and poor people. The rich people became rich because they worked hard. Well, eventually the rich people die, and their kids become rich. Now their kids; they didn't have to work to get rich, so they become rather extravagant and abusive because they got the fruits of labor without the experience that comes with it. So the poor people become discontent. And in the process of time it comes to pass that the poor people are fed up and in some dramatic upheaval they get rid of the rich people. Now the poor people are rich and the rich people are poor. Now start at the beginning of this paragraph to find out what happens next.

Look at any great empire and you will see a similar pattern; its pretty basic. Of course I'm probably off on a few points but it seems pretty accurate overall.

[Centurion1]

I agree with Arivistonius there would probably have been an upheaval eventually. and if there wasn't which is possible we would have gone the way of Canada and Australia and become commonwealths. look there are no more colonies (even if i think Iraq should be an American colony) so the fact that there would be an America is not in doubt. The boundaries would certainly be different and we most likely wouldn't be very important we would probably be separated into a bunch of little states (much like directly after the war) and we would probably become the new Africa and be poor and squabbling.

It was mentioned earlier that WW1 would be different. Well, America would have supplied men but i can guarantee you that its industrial framework would be nothing like it was at that period. Britain's colonies were successful because they used a system of economic administration known as mercantilism. This system takes RAW MATERIALS from the daughter states and ships them back to the mother country for processing. So America would most likely be a backwards colony of the Brits, possibly her crown jewel but a colony nonetheless.

[Brenus]

Well, the thing is that future USA was only the 13 colonies... Most of the territory was the French Louisiana, the one that Napoleon sold...
So if these 13 colonies stayed English, nothing can tell that all the rest of the continent will become English.
Do you think that waves of immigrants would have happened in a English or French territories?

[Centurion1]

Actually there WOULD have been immigration in the colonies. Unlike other major powers the British were very happy to send there troublemakers over to the colonies (for example the puritans), well this may have been a mistake they gave them a very impressive population boom in early colonies. Also because of the proclamation of 1763 the further influence of the English in America was severely limited. The proclamation did not allow for colonization past the Appalachians, while this may seem stupid in theory it was actually because the white settlers would most likely have been massacred by the Indians after the French and Indian war (7 years war for you Europeans) but this was never intended as a permanent measure so who really knows.

[Brenus]

Yes, it would have some immigration but not in the same space, under the same owners.
California became US long time after and would be Spanish, and Texas too. The French Louisiana wasn’t the actual Louisiana but a far bigger piece of land.
So in case of English Victory against the Unlawful combatants, the map that will design the future USA would have been different. No going west would be possible under one state rules…

[King Henry V]

Well, the thing is that future USA was only the 13 colonies... Most of the territory was the French Louisiana, the one that Napoleon sold...
So if these 13 colonies stayed English, nothing can tell that all the rest of the continent will become English.
Do you think that waves of immigrants would have happened in a English or French territories?

Actually, no, it wasn't. French Louisiana was from 1763 until 1800 actually Spanish Louisiana, until the Spaniards agreed to return it control of it to Bonaparte, who then sold it to America for a fair bit of cash. If France didn't win back Louisiana by victory in the American war, then I don't see how it would have go it through defeat.

I remember reading a while back an alternative history novel called the Two Georges, where the rebels are defeated but nevertheless treated with mercy, and a compromise gives a limited amount of autonomy to the Colonies. The North American Union, as it known, expands westwards, the Red Indian tribes becoming semi-autonomous princely states like the Maharajahs of India, and conquering the rest of real life American territory from the Franco-Spanish Holy Alliance (the French Revolution never having occurred, the two countries form some sort of permanent Bourbon compact).

[Centurion1]

By taking what you had in your book, which i actually want to read right now i can disagree i think the fate of the Indians were settled in 1492 when Columbus discovered America. They were simply not allowed the chance to truly develop by Europeans. They were constantly shuffled further or further west even if they were civilized like the Cherokee (see trail of tears and the five civilized tribes).
As to the french revolution never happening i can see this as happening. There is in my mind at least a significant possibility that the french never would have rebelled had the American experiment never been formed. Then again who knows those who the french drew most heavily from (Locke) never really had experience or exposure to America. I think that this is where the fun lies in alternate history it allows the author to ask the question on everyone's mind, what if? An author i recommend for this form of writing would have to be Harry Turtledove a true master of literature if you ask me.