If Benjamin Franklin wasnt treated like a red headed step child by the British in London, he may have supported the plan, and his voice would have carried a lot of weight. There might still be a rebellion but one thats not likely to succeed.
I feel that if King George would have swallowed his pride and asked France for help, The United States would've never existed.
Stopping Franklin passing on stolen private correspondence (a considerable offence at the time) in a deliberate effort to stoke ill feeling would prevent the treatment he received.
I doubt it changes much other than his house gets ransacked (earlier), burnt down and his family are put in jeopardy (as happened when he supported the Stamp Act).
He probably ends up in exile with his son who remained loyal to the crown (assuming the lack of Franklin doesn't change things with the French).
It was the Albany Plan, and Ben Franklin was its primary supporter and conceiver.
This seems to imply that the American revolution would continue and succeed ala OTL. When you consider that many rebel officers were still toasting to the health of King George even in the second year of the war, the idea of a very reasonable compromise isn't so hard to accept.
a lot of changes. The Americans would eventually be like the Canadians... federated and given independence sooner or later, but kept in the Commonwealth. The future US (or whatever it's called) might not look anything like ours. It's likely that we'd end up with Louisiana still, but there might not be a tiff with Mexico that would result in the big land grab that occured in OTL. And of course, there'd be no need for an equitable division of Oregon, so the borders there would probably be a lot different. Immigration would still be heavy (so much land to fill), but probably more orderly and not quite as heavy as in OTL. Hawaii would not likely be a part of this US. Alaska might be bought (under the idea of "Might as well sell it before it gets taken from us")... or it might be just taken... but in either case, it probably wouldn't be a part of the US.
It was the Albany Plan, and Ben Franklin was its primary supporter and conceiver.
You seem to imply that revolution was inevitable.... why? Canada and Australia didn't rebel from British rule, they peacefully evolved into independent states with a common heritage. I think this is what would happen with the American Colonies. Or ratehr, I think the colonies (including those in Canada) would remain independent states, and one or two may have some rebellious instances, but not enough to 'throw off the imperial yoke'.Interesting scenario! But how long does this Commonwealth of North America last? Would this prevent an American Revolution, or only the 1776 one as in OTL, postponing the Revolutionary War into the 19th century, perhaps the start of the 20th. It seems sooner or later a Sam Adams figure would demand full independence, not content with mere autonomy or commonwealth status.
In either case, what would be the effect on the practice of slavery? Would this impact westward expansion?
You seem to imply that revolution was inevitable.... why? Canada and Australia didn't rebel from British rule, they peacefully evolved into independent states with a common heritage. I think this is what would happen with the American Colonies. Or ratehr, I think the colonies (including those in Canada) would remain independent states, and one or two may have some rebellious instances, but not enough to 'throw off the imperial yoke'.
Probably end up with a currency/trade union, maybe some common legal pratices, but more autonomous Commonwealth countries across the continent with more independence than seen in either the US states or Canadian provinces today.
When Britian outlaws slavery in 1834, I wonder if there would be a revolution in the southern provinces. Once the coton gin made cotton a valuable commodity, slavery was granted a new life. In the West Indies, I understand slaves had lost some of their economic value so it was easier to free them. But the south would fight to keep them. Calhoun would have made an interesting leader.
One thing that is almost never mentioned in the "No American Revolution" timelines is that if OTL United States remained part of the British Empire, either as a unit or divided into various colonies, this region of the empire would become economically more powerful than Britain itself by the late 19th century. This would raise some issues, because economic clout is usually connected with political power in one form or another. Would the center of the Empire shift to North America, with perhaps even the capital and the royal family moving to the western side of the Atlantic?
Turtledove's The Two Georges has an interesting map of North America. Because of no American Revolution, there was no real inspiration for other coordinated revolts, so Mexico remained a spanish land. However, during some war or another the northern part of Mexico was also lost, so there was a similar border.