It's misleading -- your specialty -- to speak of averages when the distribution of slave ownership was so strongly skewed. Better to speak of medians, or better still, to offer more datapoints. How many slave-holders had more than 100 slaves? How many had more than 200? 1000? And so on.
The reason that these numbers are important is that there was a social fault line separating large planters, who owned many hundreds of slaves, from the freeholders most of whom owned no slaves, or who, if they did own a slave, owned one or two, who lived not in quarters but with the family.
Big difference, which guys like you are at pains to blur and conceal, the better to work your grift of trying to paint all Southerners, dead and living, as slavers <hisssssss!!>, scum of the earth and just repositories of your undying enmity and spite.
OK, so let's look at that. Statistics I've seen show that only 12% of all slave owners had more than 20 slaves. About half of all slave owners had fewer than 5. Link
The reason that these numbers are important is that there was a social fault line separating large planters, who owned many hundreds of slaves, from the freeholders most of whom owned no slaves, or who, if they did own a slave, owned one or two, who lived not in quarters but with the family.
With the family? What, in the same room? Are you trying to imply that those small slave owners looked upon their property differently than the larger ones? Those individuals like Jackson who were not plantation owners did keep their slaves in the house, so I suppose you could say that they 'lived with the family' but I doubt in as comfortable quarters. But I'm not aware of anything that indicated that Jackson, who owned less than ten slaves, looked upon blacks any differently than Robert Lee, who's father-in-law left 60 to 70 slaves. Both men considered slavery the best position for blacks to be in. And you accuse me of blurring and concealing.