You’re right that the last sentence of the first paragraph makes that claim (or rather a claim about it being abolished sooner rather than not at all). But I think that’s a bit of a non-sequitur. What’s relevant for the first two sentences (and the poster’s overall point) is the motivation of the revolutionaries, I.e. whether they perceived (irrespective of whether this perception was accurate or justified) slavery would be soon abolished such that a revolt was necessary to maintain slavery. The fact that Britain abolished slavery (in certain parts of its empire) so 60 years later is not super relevant to the underlying claim.

[–] CyborgMarx@hexbear.net 1 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

It is relevant precisely because of the perception the settlers had of the British; regardless of when the British actually went thru with abolition, (in both timelines it's decades before the United States) what mattered was the hysterical "panic" that gripped the settlers when Lord Dunmore’s Proclamation was made

Just the mere whiff of abolition for some of the enslaved with a mountain of conditions and catches still sent the settlers into a murderous rage; if the British had won the war, that rage would not have dissipated, and that hostile relationship with London would've continued to act as a push factor for British elites and their tolerance of slavery, in that timeline, defeated disloyal and rebellious slave-owning settlers would've joined the real-world pressure of the British attempting to forestall slave revolts in their valuable Caribbean colonies. Which was the primary real-world reason Westminster pushed full abolition 60 years later

[–] Lurker123@hexbear.net 1 points 3 weeks ago

I feel like you’re arguing against somebody else here. I made no statements about counterfactual timelines or lord dunmore’s proclamation.

The “it” in question here is the British Empire’s abolishment of slavery (in certain territories) 60 years after the revolution. The fact that the British, in fact, abolished slavery at this point is irrelevant to the revolutionaries’ belief that they needed to rebel to preserve slavery, since they cannot see the future. If you want to argue that the revolutionaries were rebelling to preserve slavery and want to point to Lord Dunmore’s proclamation and general abolitionist sentiment among the British at the time, sure you can have that discussion, but it seems like it was meant for somebody else, since that’s not at all what I was talking about.