What you say is probably true.
Now, does the United States come into being and defeat the British if Slavery is pushed hard at the inception of our nation? No.
Was it best to connect, then address the issue later? I believe so.
Was it good to put language in the Constitution so that men could read it and come to terms with that concept? Yes.
In roughly 70 years the issue would be confronted. The language that confronted it from day one in our nation’s existence was Jefferson’s.
The Founding Fathers agreed to that language. They went on record endorsing that viewpoint concerning all men.
In a real sense, these were men caught with their hand in the cookie jar, but willing to put forth the idea they were wrong to have it in there. At some point they thought slavery should be confronted.
Jefferson’s language did not confront the issue of chattel slaver. If one looks at his words, is easy to see that the reference to all being created equal was in reference to white men being created equal. The fact that the Constitution is relatively silent on the issue of slavery is because no compromise could be reached between those colonies were slaver was legal and those colonies were it was outlawed. The decision, in itself sort of a compromise, was to punt the issue, not address it. 70 years later, the blood of over 600 thousand men would spill over the American landscape to settle the issue. I somehow do not see that as a “best to connect, than address the issue later” as a noble act on the part of the Founders of our Republic.