I think it could have made have him good depending upon the details of how he handled enslavement. Were the slaves he freed only the beneficiaries of erratic gestures that had only performative value? Or did he set up a regular pipeline to freedom that was financed by the labor of those enslaved people he purchased? If the latter, I would argue that he would be best described as a freer of slaves, rather than an enslaver. this would have made him a better person than those people who simply sidestepped the institution of slavery. But again, it’s all in the details. How much money did he keep for himself, and how much went into financing this pipeline? did he in a fact turn all of his slaves into indentured servants, in which case perhaps arguably he wasn’t an enslaver at all? I do appreciate you providing so much information, enabling us to make more informed judgments on this complex and tragic subject.