The Roman treatment of slaves varied greatly but it can be said that it wasn't race based. Furthermore many slaves were freed by their masters (as part of their will, as a reward for good service, or to eliminate having to feed them) and would have received (some form) of citizenship.

Some of these freedmen could amass incredible wealth (their skill in their trade was one reason their master freed them). They were constantly looked down upon by the Roman elites, but the freedmen themselves seem fairly proud of their achievements and their newly acquired free status. Some domestic slaves could form very lasting friendships with their masters (e.g. Cicero and his personal secretary Tiro).

The downside is that slavery could also be brutal and life-threatening. Slaves were often used in mining and had a very short life-span. Masses of them would work on the giant farms of the elites and expect back-breaking work and no contact with their master (and thus no chance to establish a relationship). Lastly as property they were at the beck and call of the master to satisfy any desire.

While the Romans had various opinions on other races (e.g. Greeks are crafty and untrustworthy) they still employed Greek slaves by the bushel: trusted them as physicians, educators with their children, or secretaries. There never was a purely race-based slavery as seen in the Americas. A Roman slave always had a chance (probably a very good one if a competent domestic servant) of freedom and citizenship. There was certainly elite snobbery towards freedmen but we see no other discrimination against them (other than politics which was dominated by the elites).

Yes, slaves under Roman rule could be seen to be treated better as far as their value but we see some of the same situations arising in both eras. One major difference between American and Roman slavery was that slaves in Rome were not of one race, as we see in America. In most cases, the status of slave came as penalty or if the individual was captured in war. A Roman slave was granted more opportunity for freedom than an American slave. Yet, a noted similarity is the auctions. Both were pretty degrading to those involved.

To put it in perspective, let's use a cook. A good cook would be treated far better in Rome (as they would in America). This can be seen in America as those with a specific skill would work in the "main house" or even given much more freedom around the grounds and would be treated far better than a slave who worked in the fields. This is seen in Rome as those who worked in the mines were often unskilled and treatment was not that great compared to the that of those who worked in the main quarters. One difference is that a Roman would have far more house slaves than an American would. Thus, it would seem that an American would produce less than appropriate care for the majority of their slaves, while a Roman could be seen as providing better care for the majority of their slaves.

Also, like in America, Roman slaves were not allowed to own property (but could acquire property which ownership would lie with their master), and marriage was not recognized legally. Unwarranted beatings (lashings, death) and the like are noted during the later Republican and early Imperial eras which caused the Lex Petronia (an order that protected slaves). In William Buckley's description, he states: For injuries to slaves delictal actions lay as for injury to other chattels. Thus there was an actio Aquilia for hurting or killing a slave, i.e. unless it were in self defiance or in the act of adultery or the like. This does signify a difference between Roman and American treatment of slaves. However, this is also seen in many states in America (if not always observed).

In earlier colonial codes (in some instances) a fine would be issued a fine for a willful death of a slave. However, after the revolution (as Lawrence Friedman and Harry Scheiber detail), many states in the south and southwest adopted laws in protection against unlawful killing of slaves as early as 1788: Any person who shall maliciously dismember or deprive a slave of life shall suffer such punishment as would be inflicted in case the like offense had been committed on a free white person. Gradually, all southern states adopted this or a similar law and in 1821, South Carolina added a law stating a person who willfully, maliciously, and deliberately were to suffer death.

So, the chattel slavery was very present in Rome and in America in the early years, both adopting laws later that ensured fair treatment of slaves (well, more fair that what it was). However, there are some instances where you could view Roman slavery as superior to American slavery.