Interesting, but untrue. In the year prior to the rebellion well over 90% of all federal revenue was collected in Northern ports. The South actually paid a disproportionately small percentage into the federal coffers. Alexander Stephens put the total paid by the North at 75% and it's clear he was inflating the Southern contribution by a considerable amount.
Stole what? They paid for every federal installation except Sumter.
They paid for nothing. They appropriated everything they could get their hands on - forts, arsenals, mints, ships, you name it - without compensation of any kind.
Cut off large parts of the country from access to the sea? I know you surely must be joking with that one. What about Philadelphia? New York? The vaunted New England seafaring tradition?
What about Illinois, Iowa, Ohio, Minnesota, and other states which accessed foreign markets via the Mississippi?
The fact of the matter is your hero Lincoln took secession as a personal insult, and being the petty man he was he could not abide such a blow to his ego, and decided to plunge half of the North American continent (sans Canada) into a bloody and costly war.
The fact of the matter is that it was Jefferson Davis who chose war over Sumter, who launched the bloody, costly conflict over Sumter that led to the death of the confederacy and the destruction of the South. Lincoln didn't kill the confederacy. It committed suicide on April 13, 1861.
“What about Illinois, Iowa, Ohio, Minnesota, and other states which accessed foreign markets via the Mississippi?”
What, the Ohio River was closed down? Moreover, the North dominated rail transport, so moving goods to “the interior” was no real problem.
You said: “In the year prior to the rebellion well over 90% of all federal revenue was collected in Northern ports. The South actually paid a disproportionately small percentage into the federal coffers.”
The situs of the collections had nothing to do with who paid the taxes. The purchaser of the goods paid the taxes, not the citizens of the collection point.
There is a good essay by historian Michael Scruggs about tariffs (”Understanding the Causes of the Uncivil War”), and especially the horrendous Morrill Tariff that lop-sidedly favored the interests of Northern manufacturers at the expense of Southern agricultural interests. The Morrill Tariff (named after of the New England industrialist who championed the tax) was proposed by, supported by, and passed in the House of Representatives by the North (which dominated the House of Representatives), as only one Southerner voted for it. The Southern members of the House recognized the Morrill Tariff for what it was: An economic death sentence on the Southern states.
I quote from Professor Scruggs’ essay: “U. S. tariff revenues already fell disproportionately on the South, accounting for 87% of the total. 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. ... Northern industrialists became nervous, however, when they realized a tariff dependent North would be competing against a free trade South. They feared not only loss of tax revenue, but considerable loss of trade. Newspaper editorials began to reflect this nervousness. Lincoln had promised in his inaugural speech that he would preserve the Union and the tariff.”
It’s really a good essay, and you may find it interesting.