Being a lesser "weaker" accomplice was still being an accomplice. They may have been benevolent rulers (some of them even let their own slaves go free), but rulers they were.
"Accomplice" has a certain negative connotation that I think is wholly inappropriate here, unless you were an English imperialist, of course.
Peers referring to mostly white, mostly land owning, and most certainly males, sure.
And it means something else today.
Every slave owning business that operated was in a sense chartered by the power seekers.
No. It's not a charter. And you ignore that the slavery laws were at the state level. The US Constitution, even as aggressively interpreted as it is by modern courts, still throws less restrictions on state governments than on the federal government.
You say that, but then you insist the Constitution written by those Founders must have meant YOUR interpretation on what its purpose was?]
Who has a better interpretation than I? There are several characteristics of a correct interpretation. First, it is consistent as it can be given US law. There are peculiar constraints forced on us by the US Constitution. For example, I prefer an federal-level asset tax, proportional voting for all states, and a privatized post office. But all of these things are precluded by the US Constitution.
Second, any such interpretation holds the US Constitution as the highest law of the lands of the US. If a law, treaty, or action runs counter to the US Constitution, then they are illegal and should be blocked or prevented. There should be no case of declaring something to be legal only because it'd be rather inconvenient to reverse it. A recent example of this was the Obamacare law. When the Supreme Court overturned part the law, they decided to enforce what was left (this is called "severability"). The legislature did not put instructions in for how to partition the law should parts of it be overturned. It's not the Supreme Court's place to decide what parts of a law to keep and to throw away. If the legislative branch doesn't provide otherwise, they should only wholly keep or reject.
Third, policy should not set by interpretation of the US Constitution. A classic example of abuse are some of the interpretations of the Second Amendment,
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Somehow, because there is a preamble that justifies the second, active part of the amendment, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms can readily and trivially be infringed upon. For example, arguing that you're not a member of a "well regulated Militia" and hence, should not be able to have firearms. Or the classic, you can have a black powder musket, but nothing more dangerous. Or forcing people to store their firearms at a tightly controlled firing range. Or forcing people to have firearms with constraints like reduced capacity magazines or gun locks. The games go on and the interpretations mean whatever the would-be law maker wants them to mean.