Of course there were, especially regarding the chattel slavery we had in the US that was very much different than slavery in other parts of the world, and historically. They were also very much in the minority, and most people were at least indifferent to it.

My point is that it's easy to take our 2023 ethics and apply them to people in the 1700s but all that does is prove you don't have a proper context or frame of reference for history. It lets you conveniently ignore things in the most intellectually lazy way. I mean, look at my comment's parent and GP. In reverse order, a perfectly rational and reasonable point about how the framers drank a lot while writing a document that would found a new country (and perhaps the difference between how it affect those people vs. his family). And the knee-jerk, lazy, boring response of "yeah but SLAVES."

An interesting case is the state of Georgia, which was a free state check out:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_slavery_in_Georgia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Whitefield

Of course people knew slavery was wrong, but profits. We may not have slavery today, but the same kind of people are around, for example against minimum wage increases or for non-compete agreements.

A list that includes John and Samuel Adams and Alexander Hamilton, who eventually cajoled all of the other Founding Fathers into condemning slavery and (except for Madison and Jefferson) freeing all of their slaves.