I appreciate that you're asking in good faith, so I'll answer in good faith. The problem was never that the story acknowledged slavery. It's that it made slavery the backdrop for a narrative centered on the humanity and morality of someone from the slave-owning family. Whether he frees the enslaved people or not doesn't erase that framing it reinforces it by making his "goodness" the emotional focus. That's why "would you rather he stayed a slave owner?" isn't really the question. No, I'd rather the story not use the suffering of enslaved people primarily to establish the protagonist as noble as for the "I'm your slave" line, yes, context matters. In a story explicitly set around slavery, using that language carries different weight than it would in a modern fantasy or consensual BDSM context. People aren't criticizing the phrase in isolation; they're criticizing it within the story's historical framing regarding the author's apology, I don't think anyone should harass or insult her personally. Criticizing the work is fair. Harassing the creator isn't. She herself decided she wasn't confident she could portray the subject with the care it deserved, and that's her decision.
Finally, no, I don't think the only options were "ignore slavery" or "use it this way." There are countless stories set in difficult historical periods that acknowledge oppression without making the oppressed characters props for someone else's moral journey. That's the middle ground many people felt this story missed.
(I'm using Google Translate, reposting this because I can't find it in the comments.)
I'm not writing to offend or incite hatred, I just want to share my point of view.
1. Native with blue eyes -> he says it in the introduction because he has blue eyes: Ezra, a cowboy of mixed Native heritage;
2. White savior -> am I the only one who interpreted this scene to show what kind of person he was? Would you have preferred him to remain in the "master" role?
3. Drawing -> I can't say much, maybe it wasn't done on purpose or, as seen in various BLs, characters who appear infrequently are never seen clearly;
4. "I am your slave" -> an unfortunate statement given the historical period. Could he have used other words? Yes. In many BLs, the "I am your master, you are my slave" dynamic has become a thing, which is wrong from any perspective. Unless, of course, BOTH parties agree (and I'm referring to a certain CONSENSUAL RELATIONSHIP +18). In any case, I don't think there would have been any appropriate words to provoke the character. Furthermore, it's not necessarily true that he's a former slave, he just said that unfortunate phrase.
5. I did some research on the historical period, and it's true that despite the abolition of slavery, they remained less protected. For example, black cowboys (can you still use that word? -> my question is genuine, not sarcastic, because I've read around that it's considered racist to say "black person") always had to be subjected to white cowboys or the law.
6. The author apologized, so why continue to insult her? Did she write that on purpose? No. How many adaptations (in comics, books, on screen) take historical contexts and modify them?
My question is this: if he had just mentioned the part about him giving them money to live peacefully (rather than showing it), or if he had completely removed that part and only talked about the war, the family, and the sale of the ranch, ignoring a dark part of the historical period, would it have been okay? Or would it still have been disrespectful, "Why didn't he show what it was really like?"