I think we can all agree that Whitefield got that one wrong. A generation later though, several colonial legislatures were working to try to pass abolitionist laws and parliament/the king/colonial governors loyal to overseas were vetoing them.
And that’s the problem. Another user here floated the idea that Britain ought to be the one to pay reparations to African Americans, and there is some merit to that notion.
It’s specifically because of these motions. Had Britain not interfered, America would’ve started abolishing slavery PRIOR to Independence.
That’s a fact.
Had Britain not interfered, Anglo-America would not EXIST. You can't ride histories boxcars hobo-style to your desired destination.
The British had started to use the issue of slavery to drive a wedge into the politics of the rebellion, fomenting resentment against colonial whites and engendering loyalty among potential freemen, very early in the campaign. British policies suppressing the rebellion included efforts to curb slave-trading and slave-holding. Loyalist leadership in the military campaign employed a policy of liberation in-theater very similar to that of Union military decades later.
Since you like to use overly simplistic false binaries littered with hyperbolic declaratives, let me give you a dose of your own medicine: 'If you had really hated slavery, you would have rooted for the British!'
You keep trying to pass that cup because you believe it to be full of wrath, but the only wrath in that cup was put there by the modern progressive.