that would result in a slaveowner that beats, abuses, or kills his slaves being on the exact same level as a slaveowners that treated his slaves humanely or even "kindly"( educating them, not beating them, etc,etc.)
is not one worse than another?
I think it's a given that all slaveowners were bad/evil (given the fact that they engaged in slavery).... but i don't it's a given that all abused their slaves.
there were, infact, slaveowners that took on a paternalistic ideology concerning their slaves.. they took on a moral responsibility and treated them like their "children" ( this was rare though).. a great number looked at it from a businesslike point of view, in that they treated slaves like an investment... the labor cash cow
and then there was the abusers, also a great number.. who treated them with malicious cruelty.
the "businessman" probably didn't treat them as badly as the "abuser", but he was worse than the "father figure".... if that makes sense.
I don't think it's impossible to oppose slavery and still point out that not all slaveowners abused, beat, or killed their slaves.