[x]

Would you also be surprised to know that by percentage blacks owned slaves at a higher rate than whites?

That would indeed be a surprise. Also deceptive. The millions of Black slaves owned no slaves, so the percentage of Blacks who owned slaves would have to be lower than the percentage of Whites who did.

[CodeToad]

Not deceptive. It goes to show those blacks that could own slaves did so at a higher rate. In fact, some black slaves did own their own slaves.

Your comment is deceptive because it includes impossibilities.

[BroJoeK]

Code Toad: "Would you also be surprised to know that by percentage blacks owned slaves at a higher rate than whites?"

x: "That would indeed be a surprise.
Also deceptive.
The millions of Black slaves owned no slaves, so the percentage of Blacks who owned slaves would have to be lower than the percentage of Whites who did."

I've never seen such numbers, and I doubt if Code Toad even understands what he posted.
But I'd predict that if he did understand, it would come down to something like the following:

In certain Southern cities like New Orleans, where there were large numbers of freed blacks, some of them quite prosperous, their first priorities were to also free their own family members from slavery and so they "bought" relatives from previous "owners".
The percentage of freed-blacks who purchased their relatives might indeed be higher than the percentage of whites who owned slaves in some parts of the South.
That's what this "more black slave-holders" is all about.