Yeah it’s one of the grievances in the Declaration of Independence. They were pretty explicit about what they wanted.

So not just keeping slaves and getting tax excemptions but also being allowe to steal native american's land every way they want?

The Crown had no plans to end slavery in 1775. That had nothing to do with the cause of the war. The northern colonies in fact wanted to end slavery at the onset of the revolution. The colonists were upset about having to fight wars for an increasingly distant monarch while they were largely self sufficient, and yet not given power at Parliament. In particular, the French and Indian War fought just a decade prior to the onset of the revolution, was a major precursor: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_and_Indian_War

History disagrees:

- 1706: Slaves entering England are freed

- 1772: no slaves can be removed from England,remaining slaves emanzipated

- 1779: all slaves fleeing from tha US are freed, regardless of their willingness to fight for the queen

So, yes, the crown had legal precendent and plans to abolish slavery as far back as the early 18th century.

Source:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_abolition_of_sla...

English ships hauled slaves around a lot later than that. https://www.slavevoyages.org/voyages/Elnd5Nzy

Those were just the decisions of local of judges which declared that slavery can’t exist in Britain because without additional legislation.

The British Crown and the upper classes had no issue at all with African Anerican and Indian slavery in the colonies and were happy to profit from it.

Abolitionism was a fringe view at the time.

- 1833: Britain forbids slaves in its colonies

Sure, England had a ruling that slavery was illegal in England... but there was no push to interdict slavery elsewhere in the empire (not even Scotland and Ireland, IIRC), especially the colonies. And do recall that some individual Caribbean islands had more slaves than all of British North America.

That's in fact why the British Caribbean didn't revolt during the American Revolution: they were like "what, revolt and risk dealing with a slave revolt without backup from the British Army?"

They were mad over the French and Indian War which the Crown had gleefully dragged the colonists into, under which some tribes allied with the French and others with the Brits, to fight over territory, a story as old as time. Inter tribal and international warfare was, of course, an ancient pasttime among both native Europeans and native Americans.

The Colonists Genocided The Natives But It Could Have Gone Either Way

The comment.

To be fair they didn’t quite manage to complete it since at the end the British decide the Indian to keep most of the land the colonists expected to get.

e.g. Washington and his soldiers were promised quite a bit of land in Ohio(?) as a reward for helping fight the french. All of that land ended up being an Indian reserve the Crown decided to establish instead.

And the Armenians still exist.

I’m not sure what you’re implying?

I’m replying, not implying.

> > To be fair they didn’t quite manage to complete it

Well yeah, but I was talking specifically about the French and Indian war and its aftermath when various Indian tribes still to some degree controlled a territory which was several times larger than the all 13 colonies put together.

They had to wait till independence to “complete it”.

Definitely fair.