That is not how I see things.
And remember those newspaper accounts I mentioned before? They make this very point. If the South doesn't have to pay the duties, the North wouldn't either. They said the South's refusal to pay them meant the duties have effectively been repealed for the whole nation.
Which is one of the things the South wanted, but didn't have the power in Congress to enact.
But even the Northern states knew that if the duties were kept high, the trade would move to port cities where the tariffs were low.
Then we are back pre Constitution where the national government had zero ability to do anything. Is that what you think is best?
But even the Northern states knew that if the duties were kept high, the trade would move to port cities where the tariffs were low.
The tariff rate in 1860 was the lowest it had even been. The lowest. That is not what caused the war. When the Confederates congress enacted their own tariffs, they were basically at the same rate.
And as several Northern Newspapers and Sherman himself pointed out in his letter to his brother, the smuggling of goods subject to only a low tariff in the South would be rife. The remaining states in the US would then have to try to set up custom houses along the Mississippi river (good luck with that) but it would be futile. The North would lose out on the servicing of cash crops, would lose out on the tariff revenue overwhelmingly used to pay for corporate subsidies and infrastructure projects in the North, and their manufacturers would be undercut on price by goods brought into the South. They would have to radically slash their tariffs and to even try to compete on price for manufactured goods. The Southern states were a cash cow for them.....a captive market and large source of jobs and profits for them.