If the US had lost the revolutionary war?

Reading this thread: http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=695199, which maybe should be here in IMHO, I began to think about this question. Has there been any speculation on what would have happened? Would Louisiana have been purchased? But the most contentious issue would have been in 1838 (62 years after 1776) when slavery was abolished everywhere in the British Empire. Since I started vacationing in Barbados every winter, I have read some of Bajan history. They had years of notice and transitioned relatively smoothly from chattel slavery to wage slavery. They went heavily into education (may have been the most literate country in the world by 1900) and gradually transitioned into independence. Canada also moved gradually into independence. By 1867, they were nearly independent. I have heard tell that sometime in the mid 1920s, the British government disallowed an act of the Canadian parliament and this resulted in rioting in the streets and was the last act that Britain exercised in Canada. Might there have been one republic stretching from the Gulf of Mexico to the arctic and ocean to ocean?

It’s hard to see Napoleon selling Louisiana to the British to help finance his wars against, er, the British (although he couldn’t easily have held it, either). Spain also would probably have been less interested in handing over its American territories, and Russia would probably have kept Alaska too. I’d say the continent would have looked more like colonial Africa, with each of the major European powers controlling a region of it, regions that would probably each have become independent but would never merge.

You may find this interesting:

The result of our losing the Revolutionary War would have been our victory in the almost immediately following Second Revolutionary War. The British were incredibly shortsighted and pigheaded in labeling the colonists as second-class citizens. Had they admitted that Americans were full-fledged British citizens, no revolution would ever have taken place. As a result of the first war, the British authorities would have clamped down hard–but without the resources to sustain a full-fledged military occupation, they wouldn’t have been able to supply the muscle to back up their (even more) oppressive policies.

I think that the rest of history on the North American continent would have played out pretty much the way it did, though perhaps with a more technologically advanced Civil War, conquest of the West, etc., all happening 20-30 years later than they did in the normal timeline. We probably wouldn’t have been strong enough to want to particpate in WW1, or to make a real difference if we did. We would definitely have been a much more militarized and less isolationist nation in 1939, as well as more technologically advanced in the arts of war (because we would have had a Japan-like national imperative to catch up to the European powers)–perhaps WW2 would have ended in 1939 when we nuked Berlin.

I did find it interesting. Thanks.

It would have been the Louisiana seizure, not purchase.

A delay in the French revolution, probably. I think that a peasant’s revolution was probably inevitable in France, given the abject poverty of the lower classes and the unimaginable wealth of the upper classes, but with America’s experience serving as an argument against rather than an argument for, I think that the French revolution might have been delayed by some decades. Not to mention that if the American Revolution ends sooner, rather than later*, France won’t have incurred nearly so much debt in supporting the American rebels. With a later French Revolution, you might not see Napoleon at all (without a Revolution to fight in, he’s just another artillery officer, slogging it out against France or Britain). You still might see some wars between England and France, but I think that the conquest of the German states might not have occurred, nor Italy (the Mona Lisa doesn’t wind up in the Louvre), and probably not Malta or Egypt, two British strongholds for the next 150 years.
*I think it’s most likely that if America had lost the Revolution, we would have done so relatively quickly, back when Washington was mostly losing battles with militia, rather than winning them with hardened soldiers.

Many ex-Continental soldiers would have pushed West, to avoid the hangman.

Settlements in the Appalachia Mountains, & further West, crossing the Mississippi, would have sprung up, with or without French consent.

I had to giggle at the “Though the Patriot is fiction there was a lot of truth in it .”

The Patriot had more in common with the stories of Hans Christian Anderson then then history.

Not to put too fine a point on it, the usual tripe that we’ve come to expect fro Mel Gibsons world view.

That depends; a political solution could very well lead to an earlier Commonwealth being established, resembling Canada and consisting of the 13 colonies and perhaps other British possessions in Canada and the Caribbean.

The butterfly effect means that history after a few decades will be utterly unrecognizable. History simply doesn’t get delayed twenty or thirty years.

Anyhow this probably means that a Dominion or Commonwealth of North America will possess most of the American continent (the French Revolution probably still happens although Napoleon might be butterflied away) which will by the end of the 19th Century come to dominate the British Empire. The Anglo-American political, economic, and cultural dominance in our world would probably be far more stronger than here.