Hahahahahahahahahaha.
No.
.... I know my suggestion was extreme, but a quelled revolt, smothered in its infancy does not have the same effects as a long drawn out conflict where both sides have a chance to become entrenched in their views. At the outbreak of the revolt only a tiny minority wanted independence.
There is no way with any certainty what would happen after that. Parliament may be concilliatory, or it may punish the colonies.
Economically the British would quickly lean towards free trade, which would solve a lot of the colonies issues. (Though without the revolution it is of course not definite. Though given that the Wealth of Nations was written in 1776 it seems fair to assume it still would be and that change would come) so an unsuccessful revolt would not necessarily lead to another.
A British victory isn't going to change the fact that Americans and Brits are increasingly drifting apart, any more than the ruthless suppression of the Sepoy Mutiny ensured that India would always remain loyal, the suppression of the Mau-Mau preserved British Kenya, the various failed Irish rebellions over the centuries ended Irish discontent, etc.
Colonial elites develop differences with motherland, start to question why they are still obeying orders from Europe, and decide to change that is hardly a uniquely US occurrence.
Except that 'American' as seperate from English or British was not all that widespread an identity. The Irish and Indians were distinctly different groups; they never rebelled for not receiving their 'rights as Englishmen' for example.
A failed revolution may delay the phenomenon long enough for the situation to change. It may not. Neither would be certain.
My county suggestion was fairly flippant, but the idea that 'Americans' were predestined to appear and be in violent opposition to the British is by no means a certainty. The British had perhaps the most freedoms of any contemporary european monarchy. Parliament held a great deal of power and tory government was a relative abberation for the time. If the revolution had been stopped immediately then conditions would quickly alter to the point another would be unlikely. The revolutionaries were in the right place at the right time.
The best you could hope for is a sort of fracturing of the colonies, so that each go their own separate ways after another revolution. Or form into a series of separate ways.
The British could probably crush maybe two revolutions before the population becomes too much to control. Holding the entirety of the 13 colonies beyond 1800 by force is a tenuous proposition at best, and utterly impossible beyond a certain point.
Now Britain could try a divide and conquer strategy, which might work out for some places (maybe say New England turns around while the Southern states and their peculiar institution go their own way with the more inland states seeking westward expansion and river industry over anything else) but even then you simply end up with multiple states that Britain can at best play off against one another.
Holding the whole shebang from Quebec City to Charleston just isn't in the cards forever.
That is only with an unfriendly populace, which is not a given. Preventing the revolutionarys gaining support and quickly eliminating the agitators would prevent most of the events that turned a lot of the population against the British (and helped them discover a distinct American identity).
Of course reforms were essential to a peaceful BNA but if you look at the trends in British politics, they likely would have eventually come. At which point violent opposition becomes less likely.
Edit; to specify, seperate colonial identities may form, or an alt-American identity, but it wouldn't necessarily be antithetical to a concurrent British one. Like the other dominions when their identities were forming.