As to "conservatives do not even know their history," you seem among them.
"There does not appear to be a consensus on the number of men who signed the U.S. Constitution—or, more broadly, were delegates to the Constitutional Convention of 1787—and who were also enslavers.Benjamin Franklin is an interesting figure for so many reasons, but among them is that when young he owned slaves and, in his life, freed them to become an abolitionist."According to the Gilder Lehrman Institute for American History, 'about 25' delegates enslaved people, of the 55 who attended the convention's proceedings in Philadelphia. The Constitutional Rights Foundation asserts that 17 of the 55 delegates were enslavers and together held about 1,400 enslaved people. In addition to identifying James Madison as an enslaver, Signers of the Constitution, published in 1976 by the National Park Service, notes that 11 other signers 'owned or managed slave-operated plantations or large farms,' and then it names them: Richard Bassett, John Blair, William Blount, Pierce Butler, Daniel Carroll, Daniel of St. Thomas Jenifer, Charles Pinckney, Charles Cotesworth Pinckney, John Rutledge, Richard Dobbs Spaight, and George Washington. It is also known that Benjamin Franklin enslaved people."
Source: How Many of the Signers of the U.S. Constitution Were Enslavers? Jeff Wallenfeldt [ Britannica Editors ]
Some additional history for you:
"By 1830, there were 3,775 black (including mixed-race) slaveholders in the South who owned a total of 12,760 slaves; the Southern slave population at the time was around 2.3 million people. 80% of the black slaveholders were located in Louisiana, South Carolina, Virginia, and Maryland."As to "EVERYBODY wants to blame (instead) the United States," that is simple bunkum.Source: African-American slave owners
"The enslavement of Black people among Cherokees began after it was introduced by Europeans in the 17th century. Forms of captivity already existed among the tribe, but the slavery of African-descended people was especially exploitive and dehumanizing. By the early 1800s, elite, mostly bicultural Cherokees had begun to adopt the ideas and lifestyle of American plantation owners, including the use of Black slaves in agriculture."
Source: Slavery in Cherokee Nation
Want to continue to play at being a historian, then cite some source(s) which shows that none of out Founding Fathers -- whose work and gifts I greatly respect today -- owned slaves. I'll wait.
Until you find some actual historical source(s), I will reiterate "every nation of which I am aware has had that practice on its soil throughout history."
The fact remains, not only were many of the Founding Fathers abolitionists, that includes those who did own slaves - among them as you named Benjamin Franklin.
I'll bring you some sources as requested.
The next year(1768), in March, the Boston town meeting again expressed its support of such a bill.[30] The Whig firebrand from Boston and one of the leaders of the resistance to British authority, Samuel Adams, then introduced a bill in the Massachusetts House of Representatives that went even further than prohibiting the importation of slaves. It was entitled, “A Bill to prevent the unwarrantable and unusual practice or custom of enslaving Mankind in this Province, and the importation of slaves into the same.”[31]The House, not ready for an outright ban, as an alternative, appointed a committee to provide for taxing the importation of slaves as a measure to discourage slave importations into the colony.[32] But the bill died in the more conservative upper chamber, the Council. According to Samuel Dexter, who strongly supported the bill, “Had it passed both houses,” the royal governor, Francis Bernard, “would not have signed it. The duty was laid high
This is 1768 and the abolitionists, the first anywhere in the new world, are trying to pass abolitionist bills. They knew the crown creature governor would veto it.
Finally, in early March 1774, both houses passed a bill to prohibit slave imports. Governor Hutchinson lumped this bill with others as inconsistent with the “authority of the King and Parliament” and refused to sign it.
A negative and a veto and a refusal to sign are all relatively analogous. Here is what English abolitionist Richard Price wrote many years later of efforts such as this:
It is not the fault of the Colonies that they have among them so many of these unhappy people. They have made laws to prohibit the importation of them; but these laws have always had a negative put upon them here, because of their tendency to hurt our Negro trade. - Richard Price, "Observations on the Nature of Civil Liberty, the Principles of Government, and the Justice and Policy of the War with America" page 42
"Until you find some actual historical source(s), I will reiterate "every nation of which I am aware has had that practice on its soil throughout history.""
Your reiteration is unfounded. There's one place, and I can point to it. There's one place where slavery was not the norm at that time, and it was on the Governor's desk. The Founding Generation put it there. And the crown vetoed it.
That right there is American Exceptionalism. We're the ones who put it on the desk and we did it in 1768.
You do not know your history, you've let the left convince you to have unrealistically negative view points about the Founders.
In a more general sense, I'll end with two really good history books (since you asked) highlighting both early abolitionism in general and the other focuses more exclusively on the anti-slavery viewpoints of many of the Founders. I had these transformed into audio in part because so many people refuse to read and then they get stuck on their outdated views of our Founding that was taught to them by school indoctrination.
The fact is, America was first in transatlantic abolitionism. We were first. We own it, in origination abolitionism is our property. And yes, too, many of the Founding Fathers were abolitionists.
We as conservatives really need to stop trusting the progressives and the progressive historiography on the Founding generation that casts them as racists. Its simply not true.