In order to say that they were right supremists you will have to prove that they hate blacks. Slavery does not mean race supremacy as the Romans had slaves of all peoples such as Greeks, Italians, Northern Africans, and so on. This was not because they felt that the Roman "race" was supreme, but because they felt that since they won they deserve to take slaves(to victor goes the spoils).

__________________
Non concupisces domum proximi tui; nec desiderabis uxorem eius, non servum, non ancillam, non bowem, non asinum, nec omnia quae illius sunt.

Exactly...

The Founding Fathers, or in this case, The British, were victors of what war, to which they were the recipients of "spoils".....in this case, "human beings'?????
The argument or position you're taking hardly applies.

Exactly, how?

What I am trying to say is that being slave owners does not make one a white supremist.

__________________
Non concupisces domum proximi tui; nec desiderabis uxorem eius, non servum, non ancillam, non bowem, non asinum, nec omnia quae illius sunt.

Well, your analogy to Rome and its' slave class really has nothing to do with the Western slave trade...as there were no wars fought and spoils begotten.
It was about commerce, and profits, and exploitation.
And since we can't know the mindset of the founding fathers, one cannot say that they were or were not "white supremists".
I, personally think, ideologically, "they were"...how else could Africans be seen as 2/3 human, and therefore easing the guilt associated with subjugating other human beings?

It has alot to do with that, all of white europen was power of military, so since no one naion ever won so big that they could take large amount of slave, while in africa, there was fought and slaves were taken and then sold to europeans½

european sociaty didnt generaly have slaves no reason to have them, we had more people then we had work so, so it was easy ´to get the workers you needed

I was just pointing this out because NGOA said owning slaves made them white supremist, which as seen by the Roman system makes no sense.

So this thread has absolutely no point. Got it.

First off, it was 3/5 of a person. Second, the Constitution does not say that Africans are 3/5 of a person, it says:

Which doesn't even mention slavery, but that is what "other persons" mean.

__________________
Non concupisces domum proximi tui; nec desiderabis uxorem eius, non servum, non ancillam, non bowem, non asinum, nec omnia quae illius sunt.