You wants a fact check, you gets a fact check.
The facts given are true, but quite arguably misleading.
Title to property is vested in an individual, but we normally speak of a family owning their home, not the individual holding the title.
Similarly, it doesn’t really make sense to talk about title ownership only for slavery. By that definition Scarlett O’Hara wasn’t a slave owner.
So what percentage of families owned slaves?
Here is a table with the 1860 census details. In slave states, it varied from 3% in DE to 49% in MS.
http://www.civil-war.net/pages/1860_census.html
In the seven states that seceded first, 36.7% of white families owned slaves. In the states that seceded after Sumter, the percentage was 30.8%. In the slave states that stayed in the Union, it was 15.9%. Across all slave states in 1860, it was 26%.
The implication behind articles like this is generally that slavery was not central to the life of most southerners, that it was a peripheral thing involving only the most wealthy.
That implication is quite simply untrue. It was utterly central to the southern economy and the basis of their way of life, as they themselves repeatedly said. Which is why they were willing to fight to protect it.
States Rights - the south went to war over the issue of the centralized government (feds) wanting to lord it over them. slavery was a secondary issue. The average everyday southern had no slaves. The average Confederate Soldier was not fighting for the blacks, but for a way of life that they only knew.
It is a stretch to infer that 30% is central to the overall South as a whole because of the economic reasons. Sure, 30% is a large part, but if you consider the concentration was not held in 2/3 of the population, it points to a smaller more influential group of whites with a lot of resources who had a lot of slaves that earned them more resources.
One might even think that some of the 2/3 who did not own slaves and were subsistence farmers, etc. who might have even wished to sell off some of the excess resented the competition by those concerns that owned a lot of slaves.
Additionally, your argument on the reasons for war is solely based on slavery and totally neglects the enmity between North and South, even in Congress, because of tariffs, N-S trade imbalance or inequities, or just plain bad blood between both sides like we have between Conservatives and Liberals today.
In addition, smaller landholders who did not own slaves could rent them from the large slave owners for shorter durations of time, like to get a crop harvested.
Slavery was also central to the Industrial Revolution. It made possible cheap raw materials, mostly cotton, in abundance to run the huge textile mills in England and later other countries.
Tabaco and especially sugar were in huge demand in Europe. Slavery supplied Europe with cheap tobacco and sugar (from central and south America) where slavery was even more rampant than in N America. Later on it was rubber from slaves in Asia and South America.
Slavery was part of a huge globalized economy that could not run without cheap labor. Many people benefitted, not just slave owners. Some people became super rich off of importing cotton (and sugar and tobacco) into Europe and in processing cotton into textiles on a scale previously not possible. Consumers benefitted from less expensive clothing, sugar (which at one time only kings and queens could afford) and tobacco which was becoming a fad similar to our current desire for smart phones made cheaply in Asia. The only way common people could have access to these items was if the labor to produce them was cheap which brought the price way down so mass consumption could make people money.
However, it is also true that only a small percentage of slaves where were transported went to what are today States in the USA. The vast majority went to Central and South America and the Caribbean. They did not fare as well there because of climate and disease, plus they were more routinely worked to death and then replaced with fresh slaves Africa.
There were also many Native slaves in Central and South America ... a practice that happened in the USA in the early years before black slavery ... but soon ended mostly because of disease decimating the number of people available to be made slaves. If the Natives had not died out so quickly it is doubtful so many blacks would have been imported ... but slavery would still have existed. So, history is not kind to Europeans looking back. Natives sold each other into slavery so history, if looked at coldly and pragmatically, is not kind to them either.
More than that, I find your assertion of the facts to be incompatible with the above stated assertion of the facts. You can't go from 1.4% to ~30-45% with only 11 states.
Somebody is playing some statistical games.