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.
Sure, ok. Maybe I have this backwards. I don’t have anything to back this up, but I’ll take what you’re saying at face value to be accommodating.
You said that as the British started using slavery to drive a wedge against rebelling colonists and that the colonists abolitionist laws were a response to these driven wedges. Ok, then that does explain pretty well why so many (pre-revolutionary)colonies started passing abolitionist laws, and it also explains why the first Founding document, the 1774 Continental Association, contains a prohibition on the slave trade in article 2. But just to be clear, the slavery prohibition in the Association wasn’t any more humanitarian than Dunmore’s Proclamation. Both were militaristic in nature. The empire wanted to hurt us, and we wanted to hurt the empire.
Had both sides been on the side of abolition, there would’ve been no “wedge issue”(your language) to use or “fomenting” taking place - even if there was disagreement on every other issue. It would’ve been hand holding and kumbaya between the colonies and the King as they all came together to free the slaves. This is what I’m trying to communicate to you. What you seemed to have ignored is the reasons why the Empire vetoed potential colonial abolitionist laws. The vetoing is the elephant in the living room.
The reality is that only one side was correct here, both sides were not correct, and that’s simply the historical record. Britain didn’t get it right until decades later, which is commendable, but that’s not at issue here. We led the charge, and they led the vetos. It is what it is. By preventing us from doing the right thing, they own it.
I really can’t understand why this is viewed as so provocative, other than the fact that the progressives are forcing us into this position. That I can totally understand. Progressives are agitators, and they keep agitating and agitating that which should have been left in the past. But from our point of view, this is the historical account as it actually happened in the lead up to Independence. Britain did _not_ want any of the colonies abolishing slavery as the colonies (in whatever number) intended to do. Progressives certainly don’t want us telling the truth to anybody, which is obvious. But shouldn’t we be able to at least tell ourselves the truth about the provable historical record? There are enough historians(even modern ones) who have begrudgingly admitted that these abolitionist laws at least did in fact exist. For older historians, there is a more forceful writing on it.
I’m telling you the truth on this, this should not be provocative in any way: The empire vetoed our Founders’ pre-revolutionary abolitionist laws. The historical record proves this to be true, and this was more widespread knowledge prior to the progressives’ historical revisionism in the schools.
As to that “cup of wrath”, you have misjudged my intentions.