Quite a lot of it, in fact. Most northern whites were pretty hostile to abolitionism, even if they considered themselves antislavery. An abolitionist to them was a kind of anarchist, bent on either driving the South out of the Union or convincing the North to bolt. Abolitionist rhetoric could include invective against the Constitution, which made hating them an issue of basic patriotism for many. As a result, abolitionist speakers are at some risk to their physical safety even far away from the slave states at least on occasion. William Lloyd Garrison was attacked by a mob in Boston, which later on is notoriously antislavery.

But it goes further than that. All thirteen colonies enslaved people at independence, but the contradiction between enslaving people and waging a war over universal rights bothered plenty of whites and slavery was sufficiently marginal in most of the North that legislation gets through to gradually end the practice in the late 18th century. Those laws don't free anyone instantly, except probably by accident -it's ambiguous- and they do leave people behind, but by the late 1840s every northern state is de jure free of slaves except those enslaved by Southerners passing through.

Those generalizations don't apply to the South, which has a brief, limited flush of manumissions (private, voluntary freedom granting) and a few emancipations of enslaved people who fought in the Revolution, but is otherwise all-in on slavery. There are occasional discussions about ending it, but they never go anywhere and by the 1790s provoke intense opposition. This brings me to a counterintuitive thing about proslavery thought: as a formal ideology with tracts and standard arguments, it's invented in the North.

I don't mean to say here that proslavery is limited to the North; the slave states are just as committed as I said. Rather you don't need arguments to defend slavery until someone attacks it. Since slavery is more marginal in the North, particularly in New England, the first attacks upon it are published there. That's a long ways away from the South, far enough that at least until the Revolution it's irrelevant to most southerners. If Massachusetts wants to end slavery, South Carolina doesn't really care. Enslavers in Massachusetts, however, care a whole lot and they have to engage with that discourse. As soon as Samuel Sewall writes an antislavery tract in the early eighteenth century, he gets a debate partner. That sequence repeats anywhere slavery is arraigned and as those attacks become more serious, the defense becomes more thorough.

Along the way, proslavery thought becomes part of the general run of hierarchical conservatism in New England. These aren't originally the same thing, exactly, but they are natural allies and High Federalist thinkers tend, over time, to talk themselves into thoroughgoing proslavery thought. This includes arguments much in the form that we see later in the classic, post-1830 Southern defenses of slavery. By that time, southern radicals in South Carolina and Virginia are openly adopting something like a deferential model of society ruled by the best men in a mode not too far from what they argued against when Yankees practiced it a few decades prior. Conservative opinion in the North edges away from those extremes, but generally agrees that any kind of slavery agitation is a bad idea and needs suppression for the maintenance of the nation. You do still see Northerners go all-in for slavery at quite late dates, but their rhetoric tends to speak more to necessity and preserving the Union than slavery being Totally Cool. The latter tack is the one that dominates in the South at the same time.

The general sense of superiority to black Americans and Native Americans is a much bigger subject than sentiment toward slavery and it's virtually universal among white Americans. Degree of viciousness matters, but precious few whites think that their black neighbors -if they can even tolerate such neighbors, and many of them legislate to keep blacks out of their states- are fit to mix with as equals, for intermarriage, or much of anything else. There's a strong preference among whites that slavery remain far away because that keeps blacks far away and preserves them from "degrading" competition with enslaved labor. Some will go so far as to argue that if they must have a black population of any significant size, they would prefer to bring slavery in to keep them under what whites deem the necessary degree of control.

That doesn't mean everyone's reading period race science, though obviously some do and so will get on about brain size and so forth. Mostly white supremacy is obvious, the kind of thing that doesn't require explanation or interrogation. It's normal and ubiquitous. Black Americans don't do so well as whites economically. They don't have great civilizations in Africa. They didn't learn Christianity until whites taught them. They speak somewhat different dialects. All of these are not cultural differences, but rather indications of black inferiority. In the eighteenth century, the general thought is that the environment in Africa somehow reduced black capability but they might over many centuries recover and become white as they "naturally" were. In the nineteenth, race thought shifts to more internal explanations like the aforementioned brain sizes. The rationalizations are less important than the outcomes, which came first if you get right down to it. White Americans feel free to do things to, and take things from, black Americans that they would never countenance doing to fellow whites.

All that includes enslavement, but isn't limited to that. The black laws -they're literally called that- to keep black Americans out of whole states are something that's not tried even against hated immigrant groups on a large scale. Black Americans can't hold office, can't vote, and de facto barred from most professions save the most menial. Nothing to the same degree, or in most cases like it at all, happens with white immigrant groups even when they're deemed some sort of lesser species of white as the Irish are and face considerable hostility on arrival. American slavery died substantially, if not completely, in 1865. White supremacy was briefly challenged in all of that and for a few brief years the South had something like multiracial democracy, but whites across the country lacked sufficient commitment to make that stick or, after a brief period, even try to fight against the violence with which it was brutally restored. Even when they did fight it, they crafted remedies which would largely not apply outside the defeated South.

Sources

The main text on the development of proslavery thought is Tise's Proslavery, which is showing its age a bit now but still essential. The larger history of racial thought in America is surveyed in Jordon's very dense White Over Black and Frederickson's The Black Image in the White Mind. Early emancipation debates are discussed in Zilversmit's The First Emancipation and Warren's New England Bound. Excerpts of classic southern proslavery texts are available in Faust's The Ideology of Slavery, if you want some breathtakingly dry reading. The development of racial science in the era is the subject of Dain's A Hideous Monster of the Mind. For the black laws, Berwanger's The Frontier Against Slavery is the classic text.