>>726970>As ludicrous as some American nationalist history can be, the reaction against it has produced contrarian theories that make the nationalist history seem almost reasonable in comparison. For instance, the idea that the American Revolution was fought to preserve slaveryNobody says that the American revolution was fought to PRESERVE slavery, you are misrepresenting that. People say that the American revolution was fought because yank booj resented paying taxes, and wanted faster westward expansion, which the brits were restricting the yanks from because the brits had treaties with the indians that the yank colonists did not want to respect. Also, the brits objectively legally abolished slavery in their colonies 30 years before the burger civil war, so people rightly point out that burger slavery would have ended earlier if they had stayed a british colony… also the british did in fact arm slaves against the yank colonists, such as the ethiopian regiment, promising them freedom. Also Jefferson hollered about freedom and needing to refresh the treet of liberty with the blood of patriots and tyrants, but he seethed at the Haitian revolution living up to those words, and the US government in general supported French claims for reparations from the Haitians, which kept the Haitians economically bankrupt even after earning their emancipation, and now the entire "developed" world mocks Haitians for their economic underdevelopment and imply it's a product of their race (being racist is a sport for them you see) while ignoring the history of the 120 years of reparations payments, with interest, the trade embargoes against them , and the yank occupation in the 20s and 30s which saw their national bank get robbed of its gold reserves by uncle sam back when gold still mattered.
So yes, preserving slavery was on the agenda of the colonists, even if emancipation wasn't on the agenda of the brits, and their arming of slaves against the colonists was mostly opportunist, it still scared the colonists.