What the Constitution says on the subject is that "all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States" And they were. The same tariff was paid in New York that was paid in Charleston. And there's nothing in the Constitution that says that the money expended by the government has to be evenly distributed.
That voting map looks very similar, doesn't it? You and your clown posse are liberals indeed.
----------------------------------------------------
The federal government was never meant to be the full arbiter of its own power.
Federalist #41
But what would have been thought of that assembly, if, attaching themselves to these general expressions, and disregarding the specifications which ascertain and limit their import, they had exercised an unlimited power of providing for the common defense and general welfare? I appeal to the objectors themselves, whether they would in that case have employed the same reasoning in justification of Congress as they now make use of against the convention. How difficult it is for error to escape its own condemnation!
------------------------------------------------------
Oh,Lord.
"High protective tariffs were always the policy of the old Whig Party and had become the policy of the new Republican Party that replaced it. A recession beginning around 1857 gave the cause of protectionism an additional political boost in the Northern industrial state. Lincoln had been elected on a pledge to increase the economic prosperity of the country and his proposal involved tariffs. Soon after he took office, the Morrill Tariff was passed. The original Morrill Tariff law passed and was signed into law by lame duck President Buchanan the Pennsylvania protectionist, on 2 March 1861, just before the Sumter incident, and was cheered in parts of the Northeast, and particularly in Pennsylvania for economic protection. Half of the iron of the country was made in Pennsylvania. United States federal tariff revenues had fell disproportionately on the South, which paid for 87% of the total collected. While the tariff protected Northern industrial interests, it raised the cost of living and commerce in the South substantially. It also reduced the trade value of their agricultural exports to Europe. These combined to place a severe economic hardship on many Southern states. Even more galling was that 80% or more of these tax revenues were expended on Northern public works and industrial subsidies, thus further enriching the North at the expense of the South. While attempting to protect domestic industry from foreign imports, the unanticipated effect was to reduce the nation's exports and thereby help increase unemployment to the devastating figure of 25%. Lincoln had indicated that he would sign the Morrill Tariff bill should it not be passed before his inauguration on 4 March 1861. (Basler - Collected Works of Lincoln vol. 4, pg. 213).
Henry Morley:
"If it be not slavery, where lies the partition of the interests that has led at last to actual separation of the Southern from the Northern States? …Every year, for some years back, this or that Southern state had declared that it would submit to this extortion only while it had not the strength for resistance. With the election of Lincoln and an exclusive Northern party taking over the federal government, the time for withdrawal had arrived … The conflict is between semi-independent communities [in which] every feeling and interest [in the South] calls for political partition, and every pocket interest [in the North] calls for union … So the case stands, and under all the passion of the parties and the cries of battle lie the two chief moving causes of the struggle. Union means so many millions a year lost to the South; secession means the loss of the same millions to the North. The love of money is the root of this, as of many other evils.… [T]he quarrel between the North and South is, as it stands, solely a fiscal quarrel."
But, because most tariffs were paid by Northerners, for every dollar that was collected in Charleston, $120 were collected in New York.
And there's nothing in the Constitution that says that the money expended by the government has to be evenly distributed.
And absolutely no evidence that money wasn't expended equally in all areas of the country, either.