Would Britain manage to kick the French, complatly outa North America?
I honestly have to ask, where else were the French in North America?
if it worked with Canada why did it fail with America
The only reason it DID work in Canada was because the British didn't want another America.
The first thing I think would have to be looked at would be westward migration IN North America. No matter what kind of Andrew Jackson is developed ITTL, I doubt there'd be anything resembling the Trail of Tears.
More likely, IMO, the British would create their own reservations for the Indians, signing deals with the ones that they consider powerful and civilized enough, and eliminating (along with their Indian allies) the ones in their way. Westward movement to the Mississippi I think would be a lot slower, but all together prosperous with the trading to the Natives along the way.
I think the second factor that has to be looked at would be the everpresent problem of slavery. The British Empire would issue manumission in 1833. Given the political status of the colonies at this time and depending on the agreement you have between Britain and the 13 Troublemakers, then Wilburforce's efforts may or may not have an effect in the colonies.
Of course, assuming that there isn't a higher pro-slavery faction in Parliament by this time. Or assuming there is, I still believe the social conditions in England would have issued gradual manumission by at LEAST 1840.
Would this have taken effect in the colonies? If it did, would we end up with a SECOND American Rebellion, this time in the south led by South Carolinian governor John Calhoun?
It's also worth looking at the heroes both British and American that were affected (negatively and positively) by the War of 1812, which has now been immediately butterflied away.
Would the whole of NOrth America, except mexico be British by 1900?
You have to remember, BNA stopped at the Mississippi (not counting Canada). Past the Mississippi, it bordered Spanish Louisiana. You could go two ways with this:
1. Napoleon signs an "agreement" with the Spanish returning Louisiana to France.
2. Napoleon doesn't do anything and leaves Louisiana to the Spanish.
With the first option, there'd be no Louisiana Purchase. Amidst one of the Napoleonic Wars, Britain would surely take control of the Mississippi River and New Orleans and thus, BNA would control Louisiana Territory and incorporate it as a new colony to their dominion.
With the second option, there'd still be no Louisiana Purchase. In fact, I can't see the British touching it. There's simply no need to. True, Spain was a Napoleonic ally, but Britain saw them as a French puppet.
When the Spanish Empire dissolves in the 1820s, Louisiana has another two roads it could follow:
1. Become a part of the new nation of Mexico.
2. Become its own country.
The second option leads to pretty much nothing more but a Latin American nation just across the Mississippi that constantly falls to coups and recovers eventually with a "Democratic revolutionary" time and time again.
The first option could lead to a Texas-like situation. The British North Americans will still be Americans. Being the nation just a hop over, many BNAmericans will probably seek the adventure and republicanism that is, traditionally, a British value. Louisiana could become this TLs Texas. Perhaps this means future annexation into BNA and expansion to the Pacific via Texas and Oregon.
I know this is NOT he place to ask but I often wonder how WW2 and the Cold war would've turned out had Britain had North America and Austrailia in it's hands? Would Britain have been the nation with the A And H bombs and not America? LOL but thats for the other board!!! However I've often wondered how History would've been had Britain had managed to Keep the 13 colonies!
As stated before, 1776 is far too early to be determining what would happen in 1945.
And please calm down with the quotation marks. I know we all get excited about Alternate History, but it makes me think you're sitting at your computer snorting Sweet n' Low.