So do you think that slavery would have ended sooner if the American revolution never happened?

Considering the British Crown ended slavery in its colonies in 1833, a full 3 decades before an independent America ended slavery with a civil war? Yes! But that's neither here nor there. I'm not arguing nor have I argued against the American "revolution," though I will say it was a bourgeois nationalist independence struggle waged by the colonial ruling class against the ruling class in the mother country because the ruling class in the mother country taxed the commercial profits of the ruling class in the colony too much and wouldn't let them expand west against indigenous people as quickly as they wanted to. That's not really a "revolution." War of Independence is a lot more accurate. What happened in Haiti in the 1790s and 1800s was a revolution, and it involved the oppressed class, the slaves, rising up against the ruling class, their masters. Interestingly the American "revolutionaries" for all their talk of "freedom" and "liberty" and "revolution" and "refreshing the tree of liberty with the blood of patriots and tyrants" (Jefferson quote) never supported that revolution. In fact they were highly in favor of crushing it (along with Daniel Shay's rebellion), because they were slave owners. And they were in favor of forcing that enslaved people to pay reparations, amounting to most of their annual national GDP, to their former masters, for the better part of 2 centuries. A tax far more tyrannical and impoverishing than anything the British leveled against the likes of the American tobacco planters. And now they are blamed for being poor and underdeveloped despite those absymal economic conditions that was enforced by America and France jointly. Two "democracies" shaking hands as they make sure a state of liberated slaves is in permanent debt.... very interesting how these things are framed.

Do you think there was any net benefit to humanity as a result of the American revolution?

Ask an indigenous American that question. No. In general I don't think it was a "net benefit" to humanity. And I'm an American. I live here. I am part indigenous but being indigenous is more about culture than blood quantum. I wasn't raised in that culture, which was decimated long before I was born.

Is it possible for good men to do bad things or does bad things make them bad people?

Yes it's possible for good men to do bad things and vice versa. But I don't think they were good men in the first place. I think they were bourgeois slave owners who liked to wax poetic about "Freedom" and "Liberty" as though they were the ones who invented these concepts. That's a big part of the American civil religion. The idea that these men somehow invented the representative republican form of government. Like it was some kind of innovation they brought to the table. Their "net benefit to humanity" as you said earlier. But they didn't invent that. They were a bunch of Rome revivalists attempting to resurrect ideas from classical antiquity, which is why America loves the fasces and the marble statues and the ionic columns and the latin phrase mongering. And even if they had somehow invented these concepts, they were still realizing these concepts in a completely hypocritical and incomplete way that was obvious to every abolitionist even back then.

Oh yes, and there'd be a whole lot less ignorance like this because a whole lot more settler bastards would've been turned into mulch about a hundred-fifty years sooner, with less destruction of the Black and Indigenous. There was no net benefit to humanity; only to the coinpurses of British nobility who were sick of being taxed by their crown.

real shit JAQoffs like this only make me think that neither John Brown nor General Sherman went NEARLY far enough.