Perhaps that is what they should have done, but trying to second guess why they didn't do it does not touch on my primary point that they were seeking to remedy the problem by eliminating all existing legal restrictions on their doing business directly with Europe, and that by doing so, they were effectively cutting New York (mostly) out of a very lucrative income stream.
That is my primary point.
1. New York was going to be cut out of a very lucrative income stream that they had enjoyed for years, and that had helped to fuel their economic boom.
My additional points are:
2.Not only would New York lose this lucrative income stream, they would suffer competition with their existing industries from competitive European products that would flood both the Southern and Midwestern markets through the Southern ports, thereby depriving them of additional income because of lost sales.
3. This supply stream of lower cost products from Europe through Southern suppliers would acquire patrons from the Midwestern states (who would trade their products such as grains, cattle) through the Southern suppliers, thereby bypassing Chicago and New York.
4. This set of increased economic ties between the new states/territories would result in a strengthening of the political coalition of the Southern Confederacy, and over time, these states would have become members of it rather than part of the USA.
5. The border states (Delaware, Maryland, Kentucky, Missouri) would have quickly joined the Confederacy once the money and products started streaming through Southern ports, making the ratio of states 15/18 Confederate/Union, instead of 11/22, and that would have been effectively impossible nut to crack with the remaining forces of the Union.
The political and economic ties over time would start to look like this, which is it's natural affinity.
The Free Trade policies (closer to) of the Southern Confederacy was a grave economic threat to many Northern industries.